Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the personnel of the Joint Standing Committee which has been set up to advise the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade on matters affecting the health of the mercantile marine?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The personnel of the Committee is as follows:

Representing the Board of Trade:

Sir Charles Hipwood, Chairman. Mr. O. E. Baker.
Mr. A. S. Hoskin.
Mr. C. J. Ovey, Clerical Secretary.

Representing the Ministry of Health:

Sir George S. Buchanan.
Dr. H. A. Macewen.
Mr. M. Heseltine.
Mr. R. H. Crooke.
Dr. M. T. Morgan, Medical Secretary.

ACCOMMODATION FOR SEAMEN, HULL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the waiting room provided for seamen at the Board of Trade office at Hull does not provide proper shelter and reasonable facilities for seamen having business with the Board of Trade; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that the waiting room provided for seamen at the Board of Trade office at Hull appears to be adequate for the purpose. No complaints have previously
been received, and I should be glad to learn exactly what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind in this connection.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this room is frequently crowded and a great many men have to wait outside in inclement weather?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I have had no complaint at all. I have made inquiries, and I find that immediately opposite the Board of Trade office there is the Seamen's Mission, which is a building with splendid accommodation of all kinds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that any excuse for the Board of Trade not providing proper facilities? We all recognise the work of the Seamen's Mission, but does that relieve the Board of Trade of its obligations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My information is that there are never a great many people waiting in the Board of Trade waiting room and there is this extraordinarily good accommodation exactly across the way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the room provided at Hull for the medical examination of seamen is unsuited for such purposes; and will he take steps, in the interest of the health of seamen, to cause proper accommodation to be provided?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Medical examinations of seamen at Hull are not carried out at the Board of Trade offices, and no accommodation is provided there for the purpose. Any examination of seamen by the medical inspector appointed under the Merchant Shipping Acts would be held at his surgery, but no application has been received for such examination for some years.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seamen are examined on these premises, and that the accommodation is very inadequate?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, that is exactly contrary to the answer I have just given. I have made inquiries, and
my information is that examinations are not carried out at the Board of Trade office. If there were any examinations, they would be carried out at the medical officer's surgery, but there has been no examination for some years.

LIGHTSHIPS (WATER SUPPLY).

Mr. KELLY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the Board of Trade inspects the lightships and steamboats of Trinity House and the Northern Lights Commissioners; does such inspection cover the living quarters of the officers and men; and is there any regulation as to the supply of clean water for drinking purposes, with the position of tanks which carry such water?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The lightships belonging to the Trinity House are not inspected by the Board of Trade, and their inspection of the Trinity House steam vessels is limited to the life-saving appliances. At the request of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, the Board of Trade have agreed that their surveyors shall supervise the periodical overhauls of the Commissioners' four steam vessels and one manned lightship. The survey covers any necessary repairs to the living quarters of the officers and men. As I informed the hon. Member on 11th December, the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Acts relating to provisions and water, do not apply to the ships belonging to the General Lighthouse Authorities, and consequently there is no Board of Trade regulation governing the supply of water and the position of tanks on these vessels.

Mr. KELLY: Will that part of the reply which deals with the question of living quarters include the inspection of the tanks where water for drinking purposes is kept?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would include inspection at the time the vessel is under repair, but it would not include inspection from time to time.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the fact that these vessels are only under repair once in every three or five years, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that accumulations in the water tanks may make the water unfit for use?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Gentleman asks me about inspection by the Board of Trade, that question, of course, is within my jurisdiction, but, if the hon. Gentleman is going to make suggestions about the condition of vessels that are under the control of Trinity House, he ought to put a question on the Paper, and then I should be enabled to communicate with Trinity House and to publish all the information which Trinity House places at my disposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for exhibitors' licences that have been made to his Department under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The number is 4,115.

Mr. DAY: Do the fees received for these licences pay the expenses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question. The estimate I gave of the fees proposed was considered adequate for the administration expenses. I have no season to suppose that is not the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CHANNEL TUNNEL (STEEL REQUIRED).

Mr. THURTLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has in his Department any estimates as to the amount of steel which would be required for the construction of a Channel tunnel between Dover and Calais?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

WOOLLEN AND WORSTED IMPORTS.

Mr. W. HIRST: 5.
asked the President of the Board Trade the total amount of retained imports of woollen and worsted tissues for the years 1913 and 1927, and for the 11 months ended November, 1928.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer consists of a table of figures, with notes. Accordingly, with the permission of the hon. Member, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following TABLE shows the quantities of declared values of the imports of woollen and worsted tissues; damasks, tapestry And other furniture stuffs; wool and mohair plashes and other pile fabrics: and flannels and delaines retained within the United Kingdom during the years 1913 and 1927, and the eleven months January to November, 1928.

Description.
Year 1913.
Year 1927.
January to November, 1928.


Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.



Thousand linear yds.
£'000.
Thousand sq. yds.
£'000.
Thousand sq. yds.
£'000.


Woollen and worsted tissues including tissues wholly or mainly of mohair, alpaca and cashmere (not being pile fabrics).
56,937
4,690
35,612
6,456
36,289
6,734


Damasks, tapestry and other furniture stuffs; wool and mohair plushes and other pile fabrics; flannels and delaines.
1,504
344
1,256
299


Total of above
56,937
4,690
37,116
6,809
37,545
7,033

The trade classification in use in 1913 did not distinguish the imports of woollen and worsted tissues.

NOTE.—The figures of yardage for 1913 were recorded in linear yards only, while those of 1927 and 1928 were recorded in square yards only. The above figures for 1927 and 1928 include the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State arid exclude the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State.

ARTIFICIAL SILK AND COTTON (EXPORTS TO SOUTH AMERICA).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are respectively, the Brazilian and the Argentine import duties on piece goods of artificial silk and cotton and artificial silk and wool exported from the United Kingdom, and the approximate percentage on the value of such goods which those duties represent; and what were the exports from the United Kingdom of piece goods of artificial silk and cotton during the nine months ended 30th September, 1928, to Brazil and the Argentine Republic, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The tariff treatment in Brazil and Argentina of the goods referred to is very complicated, especially in the important case of piece goods of mixed cotton and artificial silk in Brazil, and it is, I am afraid, impossible from the statistics available to give any reliable estimate of the approximate average ad vaiorem incidence of these duties on goods of this kind exported from this country. I am given to understand, however, that duties on the goods
in Brazil are lower than in the Argentine Republic, and, during the period mention A, 10,158,000 square yards of these goods, valued at £644,243, were exported to Brazil, and 728,000 square yards, valued at £60,354, to the Argentine Republic.

RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Assistant Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government that American trade with Russia was growing rapidly and was unaffected by the absence of official recognition; and what was the volume of export and import trade between the United States and Great Britain, respectively, and the Soviet Union in 1924 and 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen in the Press a statement to the general effect suggested in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the value of the imports consigned from. Russia to the United Kingdom was
£19,774,000 in 1924 and £21,052,000 in 1927, and to the United States £1,849,000 in 1924 and £2,619,000 in 1927. The exports consigned to Russia from the United Kingdom were valued in 1924 at £3,860,000, and in 1927 at £4,509,000, and from the United States at £9,532,000 in 1924, and £13,356,000 in 1927. In addition there were re-exports from the United Kingdom to Russia of the value of £7,212,000 in 1924 and of £6,781,000 in 1927.

Sir F. HALL: Are the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given with regard to £1,000,000 odd and £2,000,000 odd absolutely correct? I am not questioning them. I am only asking him to confirm them.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Those are the figures of exports from Russia to the United States, not from the United States to Russia. The answer is compiled from official figures.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if there were better relations between the two countries, you could double your trade between this country and Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I really think that is a delusion. If the hon. Member reads the answer, ho will see that Russia has exported more to this country since the breaking off of relations than she exported before.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that there is a great difference between never having had relations with a Government and having had relations and violently terminated them?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: However that may be, it is perfectly plain that there is no sort of obstacle put in the way of Russia trading here or our trading with Russia. Everyone wants to do all the trade possible, but the sooner it is realised that business is one thing and diplomatic relations quite a different thing the better.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Are we intended from that reply to understand that the Export Credits Scheme will be extended to trade with Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, that is not so. I was paraphrasing a very admirable statement on Russia made in this House by the hon. Member's leader.

Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that, according to an answer given by a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, Russia met all the commitments she was asked to meet on the due date under the previous credits scheme, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Export Credits Scheme should be extended to her?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. We cannot debate the matter now, but frequently the conditions have been stated upon which must necessarily depend the rehabilitation of credit.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Could the right hon. Gentleman include the figures for Germany in the reply?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Not out of my head. If the hon. Member will put a question down, I will answer it.

JEWELLERY TRADE, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the continued depression in the jewellery trade in Birmingham; if he is aware of the extent to which this industry is adversely affected by the importation of jewellery produced under more favourable conditions from countries abroad; and if, after the Easter Recess, he will be prepared to introduce legislation to safeguard the trade descriptions and designations peculiar to this industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Representations have been made to the effect stated by my hon. Friend. As regards the legislation which, I understand, he suggests to establish legal definitions of terms in the trade, while I am in sympathy with its objects, I hardly think the matter is one on which the Government could undertake to introduce a Bill.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this very important trade in Birmingham has been suffering severely from the fact that these designations and trade descriptions have been used by foreign competitors? Is it not time that some effort was made to safeguard the industry?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the conditions are more favourable abroad, will the right hon. Gentleman advise his hon. Friend to see that the conditions are made more favourable in Birmingham, so that they can keep their trade?

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if anything is done to make these women's decorations more expensive, the women electors will resent it very much?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding as to what is the object of this question. It does not refer to the price of women's decorations, as I understand, or to conditions of labour. All that it refers to is the passing on, as I may call it, or the using of particulars marks to describe goods which do not go through the process of manufacture in Birmingham. On that, the general practice has always been, I think, that where a particular trade wishes within the general ambit of the Merchandise Marks legislation to obtain sanction for particular marks, that trade can promote this legislation.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at part three of the question?

Mr. W. THORNE: You will be losing some of the Birmingham jewels at the next election.

GAS INDUSTRY.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received communications from representative bodies urging the need for the introduction of amending gas legislation; and whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with this question during the present Parliament?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any application from the Penistone Gas Company?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question which was addressed to the
Prime Minister and myself was as to whether there would be general legislation. The Prime Minister answering yesterday said that I was referring the case to the representatives of the gas industry to see whether we could agree upon a non-contentious Bill. I do nut think any question of a particular gas company arises.

LEIPZIG FAIR.

Mr. MACLEAN: 68.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department has any representation, official or otherwise, at the spring and autumn fairs at Leipzig for the purpose of advising or informing British manufacturers of the prospect of developing British trade by exhibiting goods at these semi-annual trade exhibitions?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Department has no representative at the Leipzig Fair, but His Majesty's Consul at Leipzig is able to furnish any advice or information that may be required by prospective British exhibitors.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would help matters considerably if an expert adviser were there during some period of the year, at the Consulate in Leipzig, in order to advise on these matters?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I think not. I think that the visit of the Commercial Secretary, who is an extremely able man and knows a great deal about the subject, is perhaps much better.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that there is already a British section?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Mr. CRAWFURD: In view of the fact that the British Consul was prepared to answer questions, would it, not be a good thing to circularise Members about the Fair some time before it takes place, so that information can be given to people if it is asked for?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like to consider that question, but I consider that the Leipzig Fair, like the British. Industries Fair, is extraordinarily well known by everyone who is in the least likely to be interested.

CHINESE EGGS (IMPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the quantities and values of Chinese eggs in the shell and in the form of dried eggs or egg powder, or otherwise, which have been imported into this country annually since 1921; to what purpose these eggs have been applied; and what steps his Ministry are taking to encourage the substitution of British eggs for those imported from China?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the statistics desired in the first part of the question. These imports are used for human consumption in some form or other, the eggs not in shell being mainly employed in the confectionery trade. In regard to the last part of the question, the draft Order in Council now before

THE QUANTITY AND DECLARED VALUE OF Eons imported into the United Kingdom* from China (exclusive of Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories) during each year from 1921–1927 were as follows:—


Eggs in Shell.


Year
Quantity.
Declared Value.









Great Hundreds.
£


1921
…
…
…
…
…
…
468,233
462,392


1922
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,057,086
639,026


1923
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,113,024
643,936


1924
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,033,313
660,125


1925
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,000,837
600,229


1926
…
…
…
…
…
…
1,232,305
685,804


1927
…
…
…
…
…
…
681,001
395,177

Eggs, not in Shell.


Year
Liquid and Yolk.
Albumen.
Dried, except Albumen.


Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.





Cwts.
£
Cwts.
£
Cwts.
£


1921
…
…
437,653
3,084,842
34,026
531,187
26,609
576,202


1922
…
…
399,564
1,998,394
35,068
511,709
6,549
91,295


1923
…
…
455,438
2,185,958
42,360
516,823
19,027
302,116


1924
…
…
473,221
2,204,075
27,504
620,697
15,407
216,202


1925
…
…
554,433
2,444,415
28,064
524,323
18,579
282,530


1926
…
…
664,260
2,947,460
20,144
336,887
24,686
249,188


1927
…
…
628,041
2,745,486
12,999
242,659
22,917
270,915


* Great Britain and Northern Ireland since the 1st April, 1923.

Parliament requiring imported eggs in shell and dried eggs to bear an indication of origin will ensure the identification of such products in future. I am also hopeful that the steps now being taken in collaboration with my Department to improve the marketing of home-produced eggs will attract demand to the home product.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In the reply will the right hon. Gentleman also include the names of all the companies that import these eggs and the names of the managing director of each company?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the country of origin of the hens that lay the eggs in China?

Following is the statement:

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (LANCE-CORPORAL MACE).

Captain FOXCROFT: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view, of recent representations, he is inquiring into the case of Lance-Corporal Mace, suffering from acute poliomyelitis, said to have been contracted during military service in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): All the evidence submitted in support of this case has been fully considered, and my medical advisers are satisfied that the disability is not due to military service. In these circumstances, I regret that no award of pension can be made.

Captain FOXCROFT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that another soldier of the same regiment at the same station and suffering from the same disease—suffering from the same disease three months earlier—has been pensioned by the Ministry of Pensions?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, I believe that that is the case, but each case has to be judged on its own merits. This case has been considered by my medical advisers, and they are quite certain that it is not attributable to service and is not comparable in any way with the previous case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

COMMUTATION.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that pensions have now been stabilised, he will allow disabled ex-service men to reckon in the amount of their bonus when arranging to commute a part of their pension?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): It is not proposed to make any change in the sense suggested in the statutory Regulations governing this matter. My right hon. Friend is satisfied from experience that the present Regulations preserve to pensioners no more than the minimum pension which, in their own interests, should be left uncommuted.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not the present Regulation in some
cases allow commutation of pension above £3 a week, and does not the stabilisation of pensions increase this?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Oh, no. The limit is laid down now at 16s., and has nothing to do with £3.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not the stabilisation of pensions mean that a higher sum than 16s. cannot be commuted?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No, it does not make any difference at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMY (POISON GAS).

Mr. THURTLE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can assure the House that no part of the Army's training for offensive operations involves the use of poison gas as a weapon of offence?

Sir. L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If I understand the hon. Gentleman's question aright, the answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

OSCAR SLATER (APPEAL).

Mr. DAY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the personal property taken from Mr. Oscar Slater at the time of his arrest has now been found and returned to him?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I am not aware what particular property the hon. Member has in mind. Personal property taken by the police or the prosecution was disposed of in accordance with Mr. Slater'e directions during his imprisonment, or was returned to him on his release, or (in the case of certain articles which formed part of the production at the trial in 1909) remains in the custody of the Clerk of Justiciary.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Slater says that a, considerable amount of jewellery was taken from him and that he has not been able to get it back again, and will he make inquiries as to what has happened to that property?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. I am riot aware of any such goods, but, if Mr. Slater sends in a letter specifying
anything which he alleges has not been returned to him, the matter will receive attention.

Mr. DAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the letter sent by his Department, dated the 4th August, to Mr. Oscar Slater, suggesting a payment of £6,000, contained any mention that this amount should cover costs or expenses, or whether the reply of the 7th August, received from Mr. Oscar Slater, mentioned either of these two items; whether any recent correspondence has passed between his Department and Mr. Oscar Slater with regard to the outstanding costs to which Mr. Slater has been put; and whether any further payment is contemplated by the Government towards the costs of Mr. Slater's appeal?

The LORD ADVOCATE: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 27th November to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). My right hon. Friend has recently received a letter from Mr. Slater regarding loss and expense alleged to have been incurred by him prior to and in connection with his appeal case. It is not the intention of the Government to make any payment in addition to the ex gratia sum already paid to Mr. Slater, and he has been so informed.

Mr. DAY: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it would be better in cases like this that, when making ex gratia payments, to state fully that they cover expenses rather than leave people in the unhappy position of not having their costs defrayed?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the statement which has been made, and I do not accept the hon. Member's contention.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not definitely stated in communications which passed between Oscar Slater and the Government relating to this payment of £6,000 that the payment of this sum was because of imprisonment as a result of the sentence passed upon him?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have nothing to add to the answer previously made on these very points.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House why, if he takes up the attitude which he is now doing with regard to expenses, no mention was made in any letter which passed between them that the expenses of cases of this kind were considered to be defrayed out of the money given to Oscar Slater?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer has been given, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has nothing to add.

Mr. MACLEAN: He has never said anything. Nothing to nothing makes nothing.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the area served by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture is, owing to the financial difficulties of that institution, threatened with a severe restriction of the facilities for agricultural education which have hitherto been enjoyed; and whether he is yet in a position to inform the House what arrangements he proposes to make for placing the finances of the agricultural colleges upon a satisfactory basis.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): My right hon. Friend has approved arrangements which will avoid the possibility of any serious restriction of the activities of the College during the next three years, and he trusts that if the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is carried into law such reorganisation of the administration of the Scottish Agricultural Colleges may be effected as will ensure in the future a more stable income from local sources.

LICENSING PROSECUTION, PAISLEY (POLICE EVIDENCE).

Mr. MACLEAN: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the two constables who were sent into the Paisley public house to obtain evidence of the sale and consumption of exciseable liquors after permitted hours were in plain clothes, and that it was admitted in court that they had been consuming liquor after permitted hours; and whether he will circularise local police
authorities pointing out the undesirability of applying such methods to obtain convictions?

Major ELLIOT: I am informed that the two constables were in plain clothes and that one of them stated in Court that he was sipping beer after the closing hour. The constables were sent to the public house, because the police had reason to suspect that the licensee was persistently selling exciseable liquor after permitted hours and allowing it to be consumed on the premises, and the action taken was necessary to secure evidence of contravention of the law. My right hon. Friend sees no ground for any action on his part.

Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that the verdict in this case was one of not proven against the licensee, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the desirability of sending some word round to the chief constables asking them not to employ constables in this manner in order to trap publicans or other members of the public into committing crime by themselves asking for drink to be served to them after hours?

Major ELLIOT: I do not think that this matter arises out of the question which was asked by the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of that reply, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in this question it states that the constables themselves admitted that they had been consuming liquor after hours, and that they were using that evidence to convict the licensee. In view of these facts, I am asking whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or his chief, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will send some circular round deprecating such tactics being used by the police in Scotland or anywhere else in order to obtain convictions against licensees?

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be wise to have teetotal women constables to deal with this matter?

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there was anybody else on these premises at the time besides the two constables who were consuming liquor?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not the best way of avoiding this kind of thing to introduce legislation to lengthen the hours of opening?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CON- TRI BUTORY PENSIONS ACTS (DECISIONS).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 28.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that in England a booklet is issued containing standard decisions and judgments on decisions arising from the working of both the Health Insurance and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts; and if he will take steps to provide the same for Scotland in order to guide all persons concerted?

Major ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the independent referees set up in Scotland under the Contributory Pensions Act have thought that no good purpose would be served by extending their decisions for purposes of publication. So far as National Health Insurance is concerned, it has never been the practice to publish Scottish decisions, but the whole question of appeal procedure under the Acts will shortly come under review when the hon. Member's representations will be kept in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

SHIPPING COMPANIES, ABERDEEN.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate has been made of the total annual sum that will accrue to the benefit of shipping companies in Aberdeen, by way of de-rating; and if any arrangement has been made with the shipping companies operating from the port that will ensure the benefits so obtained being passed on to the community by way of reduced freight charges?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member will observe from Clause 113 of the Local Government Bill that it is intended that harbour
authorities shall pass on their rating relief by way of rebates from or reductions in their charges, but I am not in a position to frame any estimate of the share of the benefit which will in this way accrue to shipping companies. With regard to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 12th December to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir W. Preston), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon, and gallant Gentleman say if there is any method by which the Government can be assured that such relief as has been granted will in fact be passed on?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. The attitude of the Government is that those paying the dock dues should receive the relief.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is the intention of the Government that any benefits derived from de-rating will be handed on to the consumer?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will raise his point when Clause 113 comes under discussion, he will receive a reply.

Mr. W. PALING: It will not come up for discussion.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the benefit given to the South Wales coal-owners under the Government scheme of railway rates relief, they are asking the miners to concede reductions in their wages; and will the Government make the benefit payable to the coal-owners under the scheme conditional upon the present rate of wages being paid to the miners?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he proposes that any portion of the amount of the money to be given in relief of freights and rates will be earmarked to give an increase in wages to miners in view of the fact that up to the present sacrifices in wages and
hours have been made by them to keep the present markets and to secure others?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The policy of the Government was directed to the same end as the sacrifices mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, namely, a reduction in costs of production and delivery of coal for the benefit of the coal mining industry. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, stated on 12th December that the Government did not think it desirable or practicable to attempt to control the ultimate distribution of the benefit of the railway rates relief between the producers and the consumers. The division of the proceeds of the mining industry is settled by district wages agreements.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the coalowners, in addition to the relief which the Government provides for them, are demanding reductions in wages from the miners, will the Government do nothing to prevent it?

Commodore KING: The division of the proceeds in the mining industry is, as I have said, supplied by the District Wages agreements.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then what is the purpose of your scheme so far as the miners are concerned?

Commodore KING: The object is to try and revive the industry for the benefit of the miners and the coalowners.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in some districts the coalowners avoid breaking the district agreements by attacking the base rates and so lower the wages of the miners. If this benefit is given in this way, why cannot the miners be assured that they are having their share?

Commodore KING: If there is a breach of any agreement, there is the independent chairman appointed to deal with it.

Mr. PALING: I do not say that there is a breach of the agreement, but that the coalowners are avoiding a breach of the agreement by attacking the base rates which are outside the agreement. They are not only taking this amount from the miners, but also reducing the wages they already receive.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that many men who are working five days a week are in a worse position than those who are unemployed altogether, and that, if there is to be no advantage to these men from this relief, they will have to remain where they are? It would be of no help to them at all. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member—

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member shorten his question?

Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the amount given by way of relief of railway rates will not meet the losses, and that consequently the men will get nothing at all?

Commodore KING: No, Sir, the relief given is for the benefit of the whole industry and with the idea of reducing losses.

Mr. RICHARDSON: But the men will get none of it.

Mr. POTTS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that, as far as the local base rates are concerned, the independent chairman of whom he spoke has no jurisdiction whatever?

Mr. PALING: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant to water-borne export and bunker coal conveyed on the canals of this country the accelerated de-rating benefits as applied to railways from the 1st instant?

Brigadier-General BROOKE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that water-export and bunker coal is the only form of coal conveyance which does not benefit by anticipation of rate relief, he will reconsider his refusal to give equal treatment to this form of transport?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply to these questions. The Government do not see their way to anticipate the relief from local rates which will accrue to the canal authorities under the Local Government Bill as from the 1st October next.

Mr. PALING: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received any representations from any of these canal companies and from a particular canal company in Yorkshire on which several collieries depend for the carriage of their
coal. If they are to be put to this disadvantage as compared with the railway companies, it is going to affect deleteriously these collieries?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have received representations arid they were considered by the Government when they dealt with the proposal as to whether canals should be brought in.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise what it Means to a canal carrying coal down to a port in competition with a railway when the railway company has an advantage of 9d. per ton in the carriage of that; Coal?.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Aire and Calder Canal Company does not convey much more coal for export and bunker than the railway company in that particular area; and should they not he considered?

Colonel ASHLEY: That aspect of the de-rating proposal has been before the House, and it has been decided by the House. I do not think the case of one particular canal company can he singled out.

Mr. PALING: Was not the purpose of de-rating, almost exclusively, to encourage the export of coal; and is not all the coal carried on this canal ex-elusively for export?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, and 99¾ per cent, of such coal does get the benefit.

Mr. PALING: If it is possible to give this relief to 99¾ per cent., why leave out this small company?

Colonel ASHLEY: Everything possible has been done to reduce freights on the public railways, and if you included one canal, you would probably have to include all, and the machinery would be very complicated.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In view of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply and his treatment of shipping and canals, should not the Ministry of Transport be renamed "Railway House"?

COASTING TRADE.

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the effect upon the coasting trade of this country of the
anticipation of the de-rating scheme in regard to railways, whilst there is no anticipation in respect of docks; and whether he is prepared to set apart a sufficient sum to enable docks, in cooperation with shipowners, to give to the specified industries benefits corresponding to those given by the railways under the Government scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. Full consideration has been given to the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers; but the Government does not see its way to anticipate the rating relief to be granted to the dock authorities under the Local Government Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a large class of miscellaneous goods which go alternatively by ship or rail or coastwise boats it is apprehended will be transferred from shipping to the railways because of the anticipation of this relief? Does he consider that fair as between one form of transport and another?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not accept the gloomy view which the hon. Member takes. The Government in their scheme of rating relief are doing what is universally asked for, and, when they have done that, they can do no more.

Mr. BROWN: May I ask whether the Government took all the circumstances of the case into consideration before they decided to ante-date the railway freight relief? Did they have consultations with the shipping companies or the dock authorities?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not remember receiving any representations on the question.

Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask whether this might not work in the opposite direction by affording facilities for getting goods from the interior to the coast and thus increase the coastal trade?

Colonel ASHLEY: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that, in reducing the burdens of one section of the community, he is increasing the burdens on other sections?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENTS (FIRST AID).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the coroner at Barnsley on 1st December, after an inquiry into the cause of the death of a colliery official named W. Bennett; and whether it is part of the duty of His Majesty's inspectors, when visiting collieries, to ascertain whether ambulance material and skilled first-aid men are available in case of accident?

Commodore KING: I have seen the statement referred to. It is the duty of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines to see that all regulations, including those relating to first aid, are carried out. There was no breach of the regulations in this case. First-aid material was available, but a qualified first-aid man is not demanded by the regulation as the number of persons employed underground did not exceed 30.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does not the hon. and gallant Member think that, in view of the results in this unfortunate instance, skilled first-aid men ought to be available at every colliery to deal with accidents?

Commodore KING: Collieries employing less than 30 men are not required to do it. Obviously, it would be impossible to have qualified first-aid men at these small collieries.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in this case, when the man met with a rather serious accident, there was no one present except an office boy to bandage him, and, in view of the fact that this man lost his life, does the hon. and gallant Member not think that legislation is necessary?

Commodore KING: New regulations are at present under discussion, and I shall certainly bear this case in mind in dealing with them.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. G. HALL: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of low-temperature carbonisation systems for extracting byproducts from coal which are receiving
Government, assistance; where they are situated; the amount of assistance given; and the amount of coal treated by these plants?

Commodore KING: The only low-temperature plants receiving direct financial assistance from the Government are the experimental retorts at the fuel research station, owned and worked by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the plant at Richmond (Surrey) erected by the Gas Light and Coke Company, the necessary capital for which has been guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act. The amount of coal treated in the former since the 1st January last is 1,250 tons; the latter plant has not yet started carbonising. The tax on imported motor spirit is, of course, assisting all carbonisation plants producing this by-product.

Mr. HALL: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number and names of the low-temperature carbonisation systems for the extraction of by-products from coal which are in operation in this country where 200 or more tons of coal are treated weekly; and whether any of these systems are working on a commercial basis?

Commodore KING: Low-temperature carbonisation plants for the extraction of by-products from coal, treating 200 tons or more per week, are in operation in this country on the following systems:

Parker Plant, Low Temperature Carbonisation, Limited.
Maclaurin Plant.
Merz and McClellan Plant (or Babcock Plant).
Illingworth Plant.
If, by "working on a commercial basis," the hon. Member means working at a profit, I regret that I have no information beyond that published by the undertakings concerned.
Plants for treating 200 tons or more per week on the undermentioned nine systems are also in existence, or approaching completion, in this country. Some of these may be in operation at the present time, but I have no definite information that this is the case. Nor can I say that this list is exhaustive, as there may be other plants of which I am not aware:

Dvorkovitz System (Rational Carbonisation Syndicate, Limited).
Fuel Research System (Gas Light and Coke Company).
Fusion Retort, (Fusion Corporation, Limited).
K.S.G. System (South Metropolitan Gas Company).
L. and N. System (L. and N. Coal Distillation, Limited).
Midland Coal Products, Limited.
Plassmann Plant (Coal Conversion, Limited).
Sutcliffe System (Leigh Smokeless Fuels Company, Limited).
Winser Plant (Continuous Goal Carbonisation, Limited).

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not of the highest importance that the Mines Department should conduct a searching investigation into all these experiments and processes?

Commodore KING: The plants are being put into commercial operation. That is the best test.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. and gallant Member is interested in the mining industry and its futures why does he not do it?

CO-OPERATIVE SCHEMES.

Mr. HANNON: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will be prepared to present to Parliament, on re-assembly after the Christmas Recess, detailed statements relating to the working of the various co-operative schemes which have been brought into operation in the principal coal areas of Great Britain, and which deal with over-production, regulation of prices and the development of export markets?

Commodore KING: There is nothing to ad d at present to the information contained in the White Paper (Command Paper 3214) which I presented to the House in November.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners engaged in the mining industry during the first week of each month since October, 1926?

Commodore KING: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


Week ended


Number of Wage-earners on Colliery Books


1926.





9th October
…
…
235,400


6th November
…
…
316,200


4th December
…
…
730,100


1927.





8th January
…
…
966,700


5th February
…
…
1,000,600


5th March
…
…
1,015,000


9th April
…
…
1,028,300


7th May
…
…
1,030,200


4th June
…
…
1,022,500


9th July
…
…
1,001,900


6th August
…
…
983,100


10th September
…
…
982,400


8th October
…
…
984,300


5th November
…
…
981,100


10th December
…
…
975,400


1928.





7th January
…
…
967,400


4th February
…
…
968,400


10th March
…
…
954,600


7th April
…
…
944,300


5th May
…
…
934,700


9th June
…
…
923,700


7th July
…
…
914,300


4th August
…
…
897,800


8th September
…
…
898,400


6th October
…
…
897,200


10th November
…
…
900,000


1st December
…
…
894,500

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR ROAD, LAKELAND.

Colonel CROOKSHANK: 12.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a scheme for the construction of a motor road over Wrynose and Hard Knott, in Lakeland; and whether he proposes to make a contribution towards the cost?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have seen references to this project in the Press, but have received no application from any local authority in respect of it. I should not regard the proposal favourably, and have no reasons to suppose that the views of the county councils concerned differ from my own.

WESTERN AVENUE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport when work commenced on the Western Avenue;
what is the total length of road contemplated; how many miles have been completed and opened for traffic; and what is the reason for the delay in construction?

Colonel ASHLEY: The first section in Hammersmith was commenced in 1920 the County Councils of London and Middlesex have since completed other sections and work is still in progress. The total length of the projected road is 13 miles, of which four and a quarter miles are already completed. When two railway bridges now under construction are finished a further length of one and a half miles will be available for traffic. I am unable to give the construction of other sections of this arterial road priority over other important improvements, but I am assisting the Middlesex County Council to safeguard the lines of the road.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the importance of this road to the traders of High Wycombe, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state when it will probably be completed—in what year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot possibly say when, because there are other projects concerned.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman push the work on as fast as he can, and use his influence to get it through?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is not a question of influence; it is a question of finance.

Mr. CRAWFURD: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of priority, does he mean financial priority?

Colonel ASHLEY: Priority in most cases hinges on finance.

PENYCLIP-PENINIAENMAWR ROAD.

Major OWEN: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the consulting engineers on the scheme for the reconstruction of the Penyclip-Penmaenmawr road; and whether, in view of the danger to life on the existing road and the large number of unemployed who could obtain work on the construction of the new road, he will have the scheme put into operation forthwith as a work of national importance?

Colonel ASHLEY: The report of the consulting engineers is now before me, and has also been transmitted to the Carnarvonshire County who are the responsible highway authority. I am ready to discuss the matter further with the council as soon as they inform me that they are in a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY RECORDS (PERSONNEL AND POLITICS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to reply to the request of 512 Members of this House for a Select Committee to take evidence and report on what material is available for a worthy record of the personnel and politics of past Parliaments from 1264 to 1832?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): His Majesty's Government sympathise with the wishes of those hon. Members who are interested in securing a list which should be more complete than that published in 1878, and they are prepared to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to report on the materials available. At the same time I must make it clear that the Government, in agreeing to a preliminary survey of this kind cannot in present financial circumstances commit themselves in any way to the expenditure of the large sum of money that would he required to give effect to the object which I understand the right hon. and gallant Member has in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SILVER COINAGE.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct a larger supply of 5s. pieces to he sent from the Royal Mint to the Bank of England, where applicants for these pieces cannot obtain more than two specimens each and the demand is continuous?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have given directions that this shall be done; and to afford further facilities I have arranged that applications can be addressed directly to the Mint.

Sir C. OMAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has realised that
as all these 5s. pieces will go as keepsakes there is a profit of 4s. 6d. on every one which the Mint issues?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall dwell upon that.

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Sir F. HALL: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will now give favourable consideration to the question of placing co-operative societies on the same basis for purposes of Income Tax assessment as private traders?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will remember that this subject was fully discussed as recently as during the passage of this year's Finance Bill and nothing has since happened to lead me to alter my view in regard to it.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House are of opinion that the figures are wrong, and will he look into the matter further?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If there are any modifications in the figures, it would not affect the general argument.

BETTING DUTY.

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that bookmakers are being called upon to pay the Betting Duty on credit bets that are not honoured, and are also being assessed for Income Tax upon these unpaid bets; and whether he will state on what grounds bookmakers are treated differently from members of other trades, industries or professions who are not required to pay a duty on goods that are not received or Income Tax on sums that have not been paid?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As regards the Betting Duty, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 11th December to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in reply to a similar question. The accounts of a bookmaker are treated for Income Tax in the same manner as the accounts of any other trader in relation to the question of debts owing by clients or customers. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any specific cases in which, it is alleged, there has been differential treatment of the bookmaker, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if the bookmaker cannot collect these amounts it is very unfair for his Department to collect taxes on something which the bookmaker cannot collect.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a different question.

TURKEY (RUMANIAN CLAIMS).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that by the convention for the assessment and reparation of damage suffered in Turkey the validity of Rumanian claims was conditional on Rumania signing the convention before the coming into force of the treaty of peace with Turkey dated 24th July, 1923, and that this treaty came into force in August, 1925, by which date Rumania had not signed the above-mentioned convention, whether he will state why the claims of Rumania are being considered?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Rumanian Government have now adhered to the Turkish Reparation Convention, a fresh Protocol having been signed by the Governments concerned by which the Rumanian Government were enabled to adhere in spite of the expiration of the time limit originally fixed. This concession was granted to Rumania on the ground that it would be inequitable for the Rumanian claims to be debarred from the treatment accorded to similar British, French, Italian and Japanese claims.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the date when the second Protocol was signed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could with notice.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SALARIES AND REDUCTIONS).

Major-General Sir Robert HUTCHISON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will issue a Return showing the increase in posts of a basic salary of £1,000 and upwards in the Civil Service to-day as compared with 1914?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I would refer the hon. and
gallant Member to the reply given by my predecessor to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Darwen Division (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 12th April, 1927, of which I am sending him a copy.

REDUCTIONS.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that after nine years of self-administration reductions effected in the Civil Service have resulted in a considerable increase on basic pay, he will state how long such automatic increase in cost, apart from numbers, of the Civil Service will continue; and what net saving, after covering them, will the programme of reductions in all departments and grades produce towards meeting the automatic increases under other heads of future budgets.

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to this question involves a table and a number of figures and with the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The net result on the charge for salaries throughout the Civil Service of incremental increases on the one hand and of retirement on the other could only be ascertained at a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. But the following figures may he of interest to the hon. and gallant Member:—


Year.
Average number employed (excluding Industrial Staffs and outstation Staffs of the Service Departments).
Total cost of salaries plus bonus of Stan's in Column S.


1.
2.
3.





£


1920–21
…
369,135
88,386,484


1927–28
…
298,333
63,261,454

The money saving resulting from the programme of staff reduction can only, be stated when experience has been gained of the actual posts saved by reduction or concentration of the work or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE, MANCHESTER.

Sir THOMAS WATTS: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the delays in the transmission of telegrams from Manchester to other cities owing to the fact that they are not sent direct, but that, for example, a telegram from Manchester to Glasgow is sent through London; and, having regard to the loss and inconvenience, particularly in the case of stock exchange messages, will he take steps to have the whole system reorganised?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am aware that complaints have been made, but I am satisfied that a reasonably expeditious service is being afforded. The amount of traffic does not warrant the provision of direct circuits between the Exchanges in question.

Sir T. WATTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of a telegram sent from the Manchester Stock Exchange at 2 o'clock a reply cannot be received until after the Exchange is closed; that on the following day prices have changed and the business cannot be put through?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I realise that there is an increase in time of transmission as compared with the use of a direct line, but the traffic between these Stock Exchanges does not warrant this line.

Sir T. WATTS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these delays would occur if the telegraph system of the country was operated by a private company?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend must remember that the traffic in question is only very small and would not warrant giving this direct line for the amount involved. There is, in fact, a direct line from Manchester to London Stock Exchange and from London to Glasgow Stock Exchange, and that is the most expeditious way of handling the traffic without the use of a direct Manchester-Glasgow circuit.

Sir T. WATTS: Why send a message from Manchester to Glasgow through London?

Sir W. MITCHELL- THOMSON: Because it is the quickest.

TELEPHONE CALL FEES (FISH MERCHANTS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is prepared to accede to the requests from the Federation of British Wholesale Fish Merchants' Associations for a reduction in the amount required by the Post Office as a deposit for telephone trunk calls, and also for an extension of the night trunk rate from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that I cannot see my way at present to make the concessions desired. As accounts for telephone call fees are rendered at a considerable interval after the services have been performed, deposits are, as a general rule, balanced by the accrued liabilities of subscribers. The night rate for trunk calls could not be extended to 8 a.m. without substantial loss of revenue.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to receive a deputation from this Federation, which represents the whole of the wholesale fish merchants of this country?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am always ready to receive deputations, but this matter has been very carefully considered, and, as I have said, I am not prepared to take action. Therefore, there would be no useful purpose served in receiving a deputation.

STORNOWAY (WIRELESS STATION).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the recommendations of the Stornoway Town Council and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, he will arrange for the reopening of the wireless station at Stornoway in order that it may be available in any emergency which may arise during the breakdown of the cable, which frequently happens?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is no Post Office wireless station at Stornoway, and the expense of erecting and maintaining a station there for emergencies would not be warranted. The existing wireless station at Lochboisdale, with which Stornoway is connected by wire, is brought into use as quickly as possible when the cable between Stornoway and the mainland breaks down. The substitution of a station at
Stornoway would offer no substantial advantage unless the further heavy cost of keeping the station permanently manned were incurred.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the question of saving human life arises in this matter?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is true of all communications between any points, but the question that the hon. Gentleman asked me was whether I would reconsider opening the station, and I have said that I do not think it is warranted by the circumstances.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General 'whether the British Broadcasting Corporation obtained his approval before deciding on the purchase of new premises; and, if so, whether the question of a national opera house as part of the scheme was considered?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: This matter was dealt with by the British Broadcasting Corporation under the general powers which have been conferred upon them, and it was not necessary for them to obtain my approval. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the individual who desires to promote a British opera house has stated that no Member of this House or of the other place possesses any knowledge of music?

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution to remind county councils and county borough councils of the power of any one of them to set up a rivers board to control the whole length of a river, including its tributaries, has been carried into effect; and whether any applications for the establishment of river boards have been received?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question. On the 21st September last my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health issued a Circular to local authorities drawing attention to the recommendation of the Joint Advisory Committee. Up to the present time one application has been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS, LONDON).

Mr. NAYLOR: 69.
asked the Minister of Education the number of trained teachers, men and women, in the London County Council area now awaiting appointments?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the latest available return giving the number of students who left the training colleges in 1926 and 1927 and who had not obtained posts at the end of last year. Figures relating to the students who left the colleges in 1927 and 1928 and who have not obtained posts by the end of the present month will shortly be collected.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (GAS BOMB MANUFACTURE).

Sir F. HALL: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaffirs whether, in view of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, any explanation has been sought from the German Government as to the extensive manufacture of gas bombs by Germany at the Schichau works?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have no information regarding the alleged illegal manufacture of gas bombs at the Schischau works at Elbing, other than that which has appeared in the public Press.

Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend not think it advisable that information should be obtained as to what is the reason for the manufacture of this large number of gas bombs?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This is only the question of a Press report.

Sir F. HALL: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to take steps to find out whether there is any truth in the report?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have asked for a report on the subject from our Ambassador in Berlin.

Mr. W. THORNE: What is the psychology of a bomb?

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: In view of the allegations made by M. Briand at the last Assembly of the League of Nations, concerning this particular point, will the right hon. Gentleman not have a special inquiry made?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No; it is not our business to have any inquiry made, but, if necessary, the League's.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUALS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he contemplates taking any action as a consequence of the report of his inspector, who found that at the casual wards of the South Molton Board of Guardians the conditions in several respects were unsatisfactory, namely, the hammocks were either too short or too long to be hung, so that the men are compelled to sleep on the floor, and that the rigour of these conditions was enhanced in one of the wards where there was no heating whatsoever?

Sir K. WOOD: As a result of the inspector's report, the defects in the hammocks referred to have been repaired, and a committee of the guardians is dealing with the other deficiencies reported.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the Uttoxeter Board of Guardians en 14th November, at which the master stated that if they were to reduce the number of casuals they must find them tasks which would frighten them away, as it did in other unions; whether this policy has the approval of his Department; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in this and similar instances?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called
to this matter. He has not received any applications from the guardians for the approval of a change in the present tasks for casuals and, in the circumstances, he does not see any present necessity for action on his part.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries in regard to this union, and other unions where the same inhuman policy is adopted?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, because we have no intimation from these boards of guardians that they propose to make any change.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go down to some of these unions and do this task work himself

OUTDOOR RELIEF.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is upon representations from his Department that the Edmonton Board of Guardians are refusing to grant out-door relief to single men?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend understands that the general policy of the guardians in this matter was settled so lone ago as 1921 and has not since been altered.

Mr. WELLOCK: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether any and, if so, how many of the able-bodied men, single and married, who have received out-door relief from the Bridgend and Pontypridd Guardians, respectively, during October last have performed tasks as a condition of such relief; and, if so, of what nature?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is informed that in the Bridgend and Cowbridge Union six single and 33 married able-bodied men relieved during October were required to perform test work on the roads as a condition of the receipt of relief. There were no such cases in the Pontypridd Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE (MILK).

Mr. MARCH: 73.
asked the Minister of Health, with regard to the request which he has sent out to authorities to cut
down the supplies of milk to expectant mothers and children who are attending the maternity and child welfare centres, whether he has suggested to what extent the cut should be made; whether he has received any protest from any authority upon this matter; and, if so, how many?

Sir K. WOOD: No such request has been made, but in the ease of some local authorities certain suggestions as to procedure were made last March with a view to enabling them to keep their expenditure on milk during the present financial year within the amounts which my right hon. Friend was able to approve for grant. My right hon. Friend has received communications from 48 authorities requesting that these amounts should be increased, and in reply he has explained that the reduction in grant which is purely temporary had to be made in order to keep the grants paid by my Department for the health services within the amount voted by Parliament.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that at the Minister's suggestion these people definitely cut down the amount that they had previously spent on milk?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like notice of that question. Of course, local authorities have power, if they so desire, to spend further money.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the Minister suggested that they should cut down the grant?

Sir K. WOOD: No. As I have stated, no such request was made.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not a fact that if local authorities do spend more than is sanctioned by the Minister these people are surcharged?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of any circumstances of the kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (BARNSLEY SCHEME).

Mr. POTTS: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will explain his recommendations to the Barnsley County Borough Council suggesting postponement of their building scheme or some portion thereof; and what are the building site or sites and the reason for holding up the scheme, having regard to the great necessity for houses in the borough?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend invited the local authority to examine the matter in the light of the financial and industrial position of the town but he intimated that if they were satisfied on these points, he would be ready to consider their proposals for the erection of houses on the Burton Grange estate, and my right hon. Friend is, at present, as arranged, awaiting a communication from them.

Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Air Ministry is asking Barnsley to build an aerodrome?

Sir K. WOOD: I should have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND (HOUSE BUILDING).

Mr. WELLOCK: 79.
asked the Minister of Health what would be the estimated saving to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for each non-parlour type house erected, if all the labour spent upon it were drawn from the ranks of the unemployed, calculating the insurance cost at 25s. per week per man employed?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon Friend regrets it is not possible to make such a calculation as the hon Member desires without first discussing and agreeing the assumptions on which it should be based.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS (MINERS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 80.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, with a view to possibilities in milling areas, he will inquire into what has been done in Greece, or Bulgaria, or Palestine, or Russia, or the Transvaal, with a view to dealing with unemployment among exceptional refugees?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I do not at present see how the experience in dealing with refugees in these countries will help in the problem of transferring miners, but if the right hon. and gallant Member has any definite suggestion to make I will gladly consider it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman not inquired into what has been done by Sir John Campbell in
regard to Greek refugees, with a view to applying that experience to exactly similar cases in this country?

Mr. BETTERTON: I heard a speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in which he developed that point in the House recently, but am sorry to say that I do not think, from his speech, that a similar measure is likely to be successful here.

ZINC MINES, SHULKELD.

Mr. DIXEY: 83.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the zinc mines at Shulkeld have closed down owing to certain contracts made by a previous Government and whether any steps are being taken by his Department to find employment for the men thus thrown out of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (PROVISION OF FOOT- WEAR) BILL.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered if a Financial Resolution is necessary for the Children (Provision of Footwear) Bill; and, if so, what action do the Government propose to take regarding it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that a Financial Resolution would be necessary. The Prime Minister has asked me to give an answer to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The Children (Provision of Footwear) Bill, as Clause 5 indicates, was primarily designed to deal with the distressed mining areas, and the need in those areas will be more effectively met by the Government policy which the Prime Minister announced yesterday. In other areas, there are long-standing arrangements under which boots for school children are provided by recognised voluntary local funds, and the Government are not satisfied that there is any sufficient reason for interfering with these arrangements. They are, therefore, not prepared to give facilities for the Bill.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the right lion. Gentleman not perfectly well aware that
there are large areas in this country, very remote from the mining areas, where voluntary effort is not nearly adequate to meet the need?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury a question regarding the business on Thursday. I understand that it has bean found quite impossible for the Government to put down the Vote for the grant in connection with the distressed mining areas for to-morrow. That being so, am I right in saying that, through the usual channels, the proposal is to be made that we should sit on Thursday morning at 11 o'clock, and that the discussion on all of Thursday's business should terminate at 9 o'clock at night.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): Yes, Sir. The Government will table the usual Motion to provide for the meeting of the House at 11 a.m. on Thursday, for Questions to be taken until 12 noon, and to empower Mr. Speaker to adjourn the. House without. Question put at 9 p.m. That would be the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess.
The Supplementary Estimates for relief in distressed mining areas will be put down for to-morrow night and passed formally in Committee, and the Report stage will be taken as the first Order on Thursday. We do not yet know at what time the Treasury can have these Estimates printed.
These arrangements will make it possible for Members to debate the Supplementary Estimates and to raise other questions in which they are interested on the Motion for the Adjournment on Thursday.

ROAD TRANSPORT (FIRST-AID EQUIPMENT).

Mr. RAMSDEN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the first-aid equipment of public passenger service vehicles on roads; and for purposes connected therewith.
The object of this Bill is to ensure that on all public passenger service vehicles,
such as motor omnibuses and chars-a-bane, there shall be carried a first-aid outfit, and that there shall be someone on that vehicle competent to use it. This Measure will not apply to railway carriages, tramways, or trolly vehicles. During the past few years there has been a considerable increase in the number of vehicles of the kind to which this Measure seeks to apply, and I believe that this will continue in the future. This has now become a most popular form of travel. Not only do these vehicles travel considerable distances, but they are now going into the most remote parts of this country and to parts where, very often, if an accident occurs, they will be some considerable distance away from any medical assistance. Accidents do happen, and if there is the increase in this type of vehicle that we expect, accidents are likely to take place in the future. That is the reason why this Bill is being brought forward. It seeks the necessary authority to deal with this question. Everyone must he aware of accidents that have taken place in their own locality. I know of certain accidents where a considerable amount of suffering has been entailed because no medical appliances, even of the simplest form, were available. I think that if a first-aid outfit, however simple, had been on the car, this would have been saved.
The Regulation as to the outfit and by whom it shall be carried is left to the Minister of Transport, so that it need not include boroughs or towns unless he thinks fit. If this is done, in all probability it will mean that not only a good deal of suffering will he saved in future, but also life itself. Frequently, in accidents of this kind, there is an immediate need of assistance. For example, if a fracture takes place, where there is also haemorrhage, this has to be attended to at once, or death may occur, and often even minutes count. I hope permission will be given to bring in this Bill and that it will go through the Committee and remaining stages and be in operation by next year. I would like to point out that in factories which employ more than 10 hands it is already necessary that a first-aid outfit should be kept, and I think it is much more necessary that it should be carried on a motor
omnibus or a motor char-a-bane, which may be considerably further away from either doctor or nurse or anyone else who can render first-aid. I hope the Bill will not be opposed and that it will receive the sanction of the Ministry of Transport and be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ramsden, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Forrest, Mr. Morris, Mr. W. Paling, and Dr. Drummond Shiels.

ROAD TRANSPORT (FIRST-AID EQUIPMENT) BILL,

"to regulate the first-aid equipment of public passenger service vehicles on roads; and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday, 23rd January.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill,
Electricity (Supply) Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with regard to the destruction of children at or before birth." [Preservation of Infant Life Bill [Lords.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th December.]

[3rd ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Recovery of expenses.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Kingsley Griffith)—in page 11, line 24, at the beginning, to insert the words "Save as hereinafter provided"—is out of order on the ground of redundancy.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: On a point of Order. May I ask for advice? The Amendment that you have ruled out of order raises a point about which there is some doubt, as to whether an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico)—in page 11, line 13, to leave out the words "maternity home"—also covers the point laid down in the Clause about the operation of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act. I take it that that will not be in order, according to our drafting, unless there is an Amendment of this kind preceding it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have been advised that these words are not necessary to enable the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough to move his Amendment on the next page. The next two Amendments, in the name of the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb)—in page 11, line 24, to leave out the words "it shall be the duty of," and, in line 26, to leave out the word "to" and to insert instead thereof the word "may"—obviously go together. I therefore hope he will be able to discuss them as one.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, to leave out the words "it shall be the duty of."
This and the following Amendment, as you have said, Sir, hang together. The very emphatic words in this Clause make it obligatory on a council to present a bill in every case of a person entering one of these institutions, and a bill of the full
amount, and the full amount as the Clause now stands appears to be an amount to include the whole cost of all the medical treatment, however expensive it may be. My first point is to discuss the inadvisability of making it obligatory on these councils to present in every case this full bill. I have got the particulars of what I believe to be a very typical case of an institution at present under a board of guardians but which will undoubtedly pass, under the Bill, to the county council. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in introducing the Bill, said very emphatically that his desire was that there should be one rule for those Poor Law institutions and the institutions under the councils—one rule, that is, in regard to their future action in making a charge.
4.0 p.m.
The institution to which I am referring is that very excellent one called the North Middlesex Hospital, which is under the administration of the Edmonton Board of Guardians. This is a Poor Law institution, and it has just obtained the sanction of the Minister for an expenditure of £6,000 on radium in order to bring its equipment up to date. It is an institution, therefore, though legally a workhouse, which is better equipped than a good many voluntary hospitals, at any rate in certain respects. It is not material to discuss whether or not it is as good as a voluntary hospital, but it is a good institution. The practice here is to recover from the patients as much as the board of guardians thinks it can recover, up to the total limit of cost, and in that connection no question arises. The amount that they do actually recover is £18,000, out of £113,000, which is the annual cost of maintenance. At present the board of guardians, as I say, whenever it thinks a patient is in a position to pay makes a charge, and in some cases a high charge, up to the total amount or the cost, which during 4he past year amounted to 49s. per week per patient. I cannot say exactly how many do pay, or how many do not, but in the last 12 months only about 15 per cent. of the patients paid any contribution at all. Assuming that this institution is handed over to the Middlesex County Council, as it undoubtedly will be, it means that the Bill as it now stands will require the county council to present a bill of
49s. a week to every one of the patients who has occasion to use that institution, although in the case of the board of guardians, with every desire to get as much as they can, only about 15 per cent. of the patients pay any contribution, and in 85 per cent. of the cases there is at present nothing recovered. I submit that it would be a very serious change to make if, instead of presenting a bill for 55., 10s., 20s. up to 49s., according to the means of the person in 15 per cent. of the cases, the local authority should be practically required—and required in such a way that the district auditor would have no option but to complain seriously if it were not done—to make the full charge of 49s. in all cases. If everyone who goes into this hospital is told that he or she will receive a bib necessarily at the rate of 49s. per week, with some prospect of the amount being reduced, it will be, as I am informed by medical people concerned, a very serious deterrent to people going into that hospital at the earliest possible date.
To take one very important example. A ward is being fitted up with radium at very great expense for the treatment of cancer. The mortality in cancer to-day is very serious, and every effort is being made by public health people to induce patients at the very earliest moment they detect the least sign of cancer at once to go to the hospital. The poor woman for whose benefit this is being done runs very great danger, because, being unwilling to leave her home and family, she is tempted to put off this consultation, and for that reason special treatment is being provided for such a patient. Now every poor woman is to be told that she will be presented with a bill for 49s. a week if she goes into that hospital. It seems to me that it cannot fail to have a very deterrent effect on the use of the hospital. Under the Poor Law, without objection from the Ministry of Health, the board of guardians have exercised their discretion, and have recognised that 85 per cent. of the patients are not in a position to pay anything whatever.
I submit that it would not be in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's own intentions or desires to make this emphatic change. He said that he wanted one rule of procedure in this matter in the Poor Law institutions and
the public health institutions. In the case I have mentioned this momentous change will mean that, instead of only 15 per cent. of the patients being presented with a bill, the whole 100 per cent. will be. Instead of the bill being graduated according to the means of the patient, it will have to be presented for the full amount in each case, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot make some Amendment which will carry out what I believe to be his intentions? I do not want to dwell unnecessarily on that. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see exactly my point. It seems to me that you do not want to put up over the doors of these hospitals: "Anyone who enters here will have a perfectly impossible bill presented to him, whether he can pay it or not," and then, the day after, get relief from such a bill. The psychological effect of that undoubtedly would he a deterrent to people entering these institutions, and, what is more, in this particular case would be a very strong argument against handing over the North Middlesex Hospital to the Middlesex County Council, as it would probably be of more use to the people in the district if it were retained in the hands of the Edmonton Board of Guardians.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I had rather anticipated, as a result of our discussion on the Second Reading, that the Minister of Health would have to come to the Committee to-day and proposed some concession in this matter. As I see from the Order Paper that there is no Amendment standing in his name, I have come to the conclusion that he intends to stand pat on the Clause as it is at the present time. That being so, I wish that a larger number of Members of all parties ere inside this Chamber to have heard the speech of my right hon. Friend, in order that they could bring pressure to bear on the Minister to do what, I am certain, if they understood it, they would recognise is essentially the right thing to do with regard to this Clause. Let us see what is the present position. Where services are given under the Poor Law, the guardians recover what they can, but by the nature of the case the amount they can recover is necessarily small. On the other hand, the local authorities are not
under any obligation to recover from the patients. The position is defined by Section 152 of the Public Health 1875, where it says:
Any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining a patient in a hospital, may be recovered from him at any time within six months after his discharge.
This Clause makes two alterations. In the first place it, in effect, uses the word "must" instead of the word "may," and, in the second place, it defines the amount to be recovered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that this Amendment does not deal with the amount to be recovered, and the Committee must not enter into a discussion in regard to that matter on this Amendment. We are now dealing with the question whether the local authority "must" or "may" recover.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With all respect, there is difficulty in dividing those two questions, because the whole point in the argument is that, under the Clause as it stands, the local authority may send in a bill for the whole amount, subject to what is said later in the Clause, and if we are to divide it into two, the argument will be somewhat difficult to carry through. My suggestion is that your permission should be given to discuss these two points together, and so save the time of the Committee and enable us to discuss the subject much better.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Of course, in that matter I am in the hands of the Committee. If they wish to discuss this Amendment and the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy)—in page 11, line 31, to leave out the words "the whole of the," and to insert instead thereof the words "a reasonable sure for"—and also the consequential Amendment standing in his name where he defines what is a reasonable sum, I do not think it would be out of order, but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee as to whether they wish to take the discussion on both Amendments at the same time.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I submit that they are two entirely different points, and it would be very confusing if we discussed them
at the same time. One deals with the question as to whether the local authority shall or shall not have discretionary power, and the other with the amount which the local authority shall he allowed to recover.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: As the Member responsible for the Amendment referred, to, while I desire to act in accord with the general wishes of the Committee, I should like to feel assured that my Amendment will be reached, and I cannot be quite certain on that point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to that, it is, of course, a matter outside my control. With regard to the point of view raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), if any member of the Committee objects to discussing the two Amendments together, I am bound to rule against that being done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman objects, I must obey your Ruling and confine my remarks to the one Amendment. I mast, however, say this on the other point, that if the further Amendment be not reached, that will be a reason why the Minister should give way and make some concession on this proposal. To confine our attention solely to the question of the word "shall" instead of "may" we have this fact, that in the Act of 1875 the word used is "may," and the principal change which the Bill is proposing in this respect is to lay down that it shall be the duty of the local authority to recover expenses under this Clause.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the case of the unmarried mother. At the present time, whether the unmarried mother be treated in a voluntary hospital, or special nursing home or in an institution under the local authority, great care is taken to preserve the secrecy which may be necessary in these cases. Under the Clause, as I understand it, if the woman herself is unable to produce any money, application will be made at once to members of her family—her father, or whoever may be responsible in law for that woman. Some hon. Members may regard this as an unimportant point, but it is a matter of extreme importance, because the result
of that will be that these women will not go into a home or institution to be treated, and the unmarried mother will be kept outside. The consequence will be that these institutions will not be put to the use for which they are intended, and there will be the irregular proceedings that were in existence before, to the great detriment of society and public health generally.
I do not want hon. Members to think that in urging our claim for this point of view we are urging it because of sentimental pity for individuals. It may be true that the voluntary hospitals are founded on some idea of compassion for individuals who suffer and require treatment, and it may be true that the Poor Law institutions are founded on the desire to prevent vagrancy and destitution, but the Public Health services under the local authorities exist for a social purpose, to stamp out illness and to improve the general health of the community. They represent in practice the expression of a very great truth. When the sacred writer said that we are
every one members one of another,
he was expressing a great mystic principle, but, like many great spiritual truths, this text does express in practical everyday form the principle of the administration of public health by local authorities. The time was when persons suffering from venereal disease had to fight their battle unaided by the community; to-day we realise that that is not merely individually cruel, but socially disastrous. The time was when persons suffering from infectious disease had to fight their own battles, and we recognise to-day the folly of that course. When we come to cancer, maternity and child-welfare, is it suggested that the position is entirely different? If it be so, I can only say that to omit public provision for these matters is to injure the race of the future. So-called economy in these matters is really gross extravagance, and it is because the community needs and demands that persons shall receive attention in these hospitals, and because they will be deterred from going for such treatment by the provisions of this Clause, particularly unless the Amendment which we cannot now discuss is made, that we ask the Committee to support this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee will not have failed to notice that we have spent 40 minutes in discussing a simple point, time which might have been given to more important matters.

Mr. PETH1CK-LAWRENCE: We did not begin until five minutes to four, and it is now 20 minutes past.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At any rate, whatever time we have spent has been longer than is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) repeated over and over again about 12 times the point which was really the sole point that he wanted to make. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) took a wider view, and if there be any logic in his view at all, there ought to be no charge for treatment in an institution, either by a local authority or by a Poor Law authority. However, I prefer to take the point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham. Of course, if his Amendment were carried, we should be exactly where we are now. Local authorities have this power now, and therefore the Amendment would be quite unnecessary, and would perpetuate the present state of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman did not argue that it is not right that a local authority should recover from a person receiving treatment in an institution such part of the cost of his maintenance and treatment as that person could afford. He suggested that the Bill would force local authorities to present such person with a bill. Where does he find that in the Bill? I heard him say it, I do not know how many times. There is nothing in the Bill which says that the authority must present a hill for the whole of the expense to a person receiving treatment. In fact it is not contemplated that the local authority should do anything of the kind.
What the local authority would do would be precisely what is done now in similar cases. The local authoities, have their officers and means of making investigations, and of finding out whether a person is able to pay anything, and if so how much, and they make these inquiries before they send in any bill at all. Therefore, the charge that would be made to the person would be made after the local authority had
ascertained what the person would be able to pay, and no such revolutionary alteration in the practice of local authorities is contemplated as apparently the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. The object of this Clause is to have one rule for both kinds of institutions. If we had not a provision of this sort, the position would be that in the case of a destitute person treated under the Poor Law, it would be the duty of the local authority to recover the whole of the costs from him, or such part as he was able to pay; but in the case of a person who was not destitute and was able to pay, there would be a discretion with the local authority. That is a very topsy-turvy state of things, and an anomaly which is being removed by this Clause.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I must protest strongly against the attitude of the Minister in his statement about the waste of time. No one can accuse any Member on this side of the House of obstructive methods. [Laughter.] I am speaking perfectly seriously. We have had on many occasions to restrict discussion far below what is reasonable under the circumstances, and if it be that hon. Members opposite have to sit and wring their hands because their Amendments cannot be discussed, the person responsible is the Minister. We ore being asked to discuss Clauses 13 to 16 in three-and-a-had hours; it is a physical impossibility, and when there are Amendments of this kind, which are Amendments of substance, my friends are going to have the maximum opportunity of discussing them. The guillotine is imposed on us, and we must choose the things which we de-sire to discuss. Unfortunately, we have a very wide range of choice, and many points which we would discuss will, by the operation of the guillotine, remain undiscussed.
The present Amendment is not a small point, but one of substantial importance. When we were discussing Clauses 4 and 5, and wished to make certain powers of local authorities mandatory, the Minister rose in all his majesty to protect the freedom of local authorities. Now, when he is imposing new duties upon local authorities, and we wish them to maintain their freedom and initiative, the right hon. Gentleman quotes arguments opposite to those which he quoted against us on Clauses 4 and 5. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect to have it both ways. The object of this
Amendment is to maintain the law as it is now, so that local authorities shall have the power to make such charges as they may think fit, but not to impose upon them the duty of examining every case, and of making a charge in every, case to fit the circumstances of a beneficiary in one of the institutions referred to in the Bill. I regard any general collective expenditure as that which yields the maximum return. I would rather pay through the rates for such services as I may require than be badgered to death by the registrar of a hospital making detailed examinations into my ability to pay. Presumably we ought to accept the hypothesis that people are rated according to their ability to pay. We are not in fact so rated, and the whole rating system ought to be altered, but so long as it exists as it is, we are entitled to say that people are paying rates according to their means. If that be so, this additional imposition of a poll-tax upon individuals who are receiving particular services is quite unnecessary.
See how it will work out in practice. It will mean that some of the energy and time of the administrative staffs of our public departments will be diverted to this business of collecting money. As I said on Second Reading, public health authorities, instead of being authorities primarily concerned with rooting out the causes of disease, and securing the earliest possible treatment of disease in its incipient stages, will become glorified debt collectors, and there is bound to follow an increase in that bureaucracy which hon. Members opposite profess to loathe. I have always held that the real friends and creators of bureaucracy in this country are the Tory party. Wherever it is possible for them to badger the poor and to extract small sums in payment for services, you may be sure that they will do it, and in order to do it, they erect an elaborate bureaucracy of officials and collectors, and possibly solicitors to take cases to the local courts. All the effort is far beyond any real value that can ever accrue from the collection of these amounts. Suppose that you were to extract out of individual cases of institutional treatment the maximum amount that even a hard-hearted person would extract, and that you made the largest claim that anybody could reasonably demand, the
total contributions of all the cases dealt with in a year would be so small relatively to the total expenditure, that it really would not be worth while for the amount of effort that was expended on it.
That is our fear, and if it has to be put 12 times, I do not mind, because hon. Members opposite need a certain amount of repetition in order to understand our point of view. This is our point of view. It is not so much the mere collection of the money that we regard as obnoxious, but that the new duty which is imposed on local authorities is bound to be a deterrent, and will lead to numbers of people who ought at an early stage to seek institutional treatment to postpone it or not to go at all. We know that has been so in the past, and any deterrent in the way of people who need institutional treatment seeking that treatment is against the public wellbeing. When the right hon. Gentleman was defending this Clause on Second Reading, he definitely excluded certain cases, saying, "I exclude them because it is in the public interest that those people should have nothing put in the way of their securing early treatment, which is necessary in the public interest."
We submit that you cannot single out one disease and say that it is a public danger, while other diseases are not. All diseases stand in the same category; if they are preventable, they ought to be prevented by every means in our power, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make any exception at all he is really conceding our case. If a person has a disease like cancer, which can be treated by that radiological treatment which the Minister is encouraging, then clearly nothing ought to stand in the way of that person receiving treatment at the earliest possible moment. The same can be said of any other disease. From the point of view of the public health and of stamping out disease, Parliament ought to do nothing which will in any way hamper the public health authorities, and it is our view that in imposing this other duty on local authorities we shall be hampering their work, particularly in the case of those progressive local authorities which have been more concerned to provide treatment than to recover money.
As I understand it, the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman and many members of his party is that it is far more important to drag a few coppers out of the person who has been treated than to make certain that he secures early treatment. We utterly dissent from that point of view. [Interruption.] If that be so, then I hope many hon. Members opposite will follow us into the Lobby. Evidently we are doing better than I thought, by this repetition of our case 12 times. If hon. Members think that early treatment is more important than the recovery of money, quite clearly they cannot conscientiously support a proposal which makes it obligatory upon all local authorities to put the question of the charge before anything else, which is what this Clause actually does. I hope we shall have the support of the benches opposite for our plea for the early treatment of disease and our contention that local authorities shall not have imposed upon them a duty which will be repugnant to a large number of the more progressive authorities.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) showed extreme lack of knowledge of the subject on which he had been speaking. Perhaps he will allow me, as an old medical officer of the Poor Law, as a hospital official, and as a general practitioner, to let him know what really happens. In the majority of cases, a person who is sick goes first of all to his private doctor, without any thought of what it is going to cost. The doctor examines him and, if the case requires treatment in an institution, sends the man to the institution. In some of the large towns you will find, occasionally, that the patient, instead of going to a doctor, goes to the out-patients' department of a voluntary hospital and gets some attention there, without any cost at all to himself. For the hon. Member to say that the Government by this Bill are trying to prevent people seeking medical assistance at the earliest possible moment is to say what is not true, and to put a false construction on the Bill.
The people of this country know, and have known for years, that they can always get medical assistance either from hospitals. Poor Law institutions or
doctors without any thought of the ultimate cost. Take the case of a genera] practitioner in an industrial district—in the huge majority of cases. He does not ask a patient, "Where is your fee, and then I will tell you what is the matter with you." [Interruption.] Oh, no. Pardon me! I am speaking from actual experience. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are we!"] Hon. Members in the Labour party may speak from rumour or hear say—[Interruption]—but their attitude is a distinct reflection and libel on a most honourable profession. I maintain without fear of contradiction that no man or woman in this country need delay for one moment in getting the most expert advice and the most expert treatment through fear of poverty, or fear of the cost, and there is nothing in this Bill which will hinder them in the slightest degree. It is absolutely wrong for an hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench to make the statements we have heard this afternoon, but I will ask hon. Members and the people of the country to notice that this is the policy of the Labour party, that the destitute poor should be charged for medical attention, but that the public health authorities need not make a charge. [Interruption.] That is what you are asking for—to charge the destitute poor, but not allow the public authority to do so—and that is a scandal.

Mr. HARNEY: I really think the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) has missed the point. I think the Minister has answered the point which I understood to be put by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that at the present time there was nothing to prevent a person going to an institution without the fear of there being any inquiry into his means or his being charged. But listen to the words of the Clause:
It shall he the duty of the council"—
to recover the cost of treatment in any institution, with the exception of infectious disease. The only qualification of that absolute obligation to recover is this:
If the council or authority are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable are unable by reason of circumstances"—
to pay those expenses. There are cases where circumstances would make it highly inadvisable to bring about an inquisition, involving publicity, in an effort to recover the expenses. As an illustraton of that, the ease of the illegitimate child has been mentioned. I do not think the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment desire to see any lack of uniformity, but they desire that it should be a uniformity on a line different from that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. At the present time, as I understand things, if you go into an institution under the status of a pauper the authority must sue you whet her they like it or not. If you are of a pauper status and you have the means to pay, it is an obligation upon the authority to make you pay. But if you go into an institution not under the status of a pauper, the authority are left with the option of suing you or of not suing you, as they may decide. In maternity cases, as I understand the law, there is an obligation not to sue. This Clause says that we are to knock the three together, and that in every case the authorities shall do what they must do at present in the case of a pauper.
Take the case of anyone going into an institution suffering, say, from infectious disease, suffering from cancer, or suffering from a venereal disease, or, in the case of a poor woman, going into a maternity home where she hopes to keep dark the misfortune she has got into. If you say that in everyone of those cases there is an obligation to sue provided the persons treated or their friends have money, then undoubtedly that will deter those persons from seeking this form of assistance. I know you would certainly deter me if I were a poor person. If I found that I were suffering from a disease and that the only way in which I could get cured was by going into a hospital and running the risk of the publicity of being sued, then I would suffer for a very long time. If I were an unfortunate young woman covering up what is called her shame, but what I would call her misfortune, I would do a great number of things indeed before going into an institution if I knew that there was an obligation upon the authorities to sue my parents or my relatives should they have money. That is the real objection to the Bill. The Mover and the Seconder would be satisfied with this uniformity—that you should apply to all institutions the
rule you now apply to non-pauper institutions, that is, leave it to the discretion of the local authority to sue or not to sue as they think reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I feel sure that if the Minister had consulted the local authorities on this point he would have found that they do not concur in his opinion. I ask the Minister who is to determine whether people are in a position to pay, or otherwise. Presumably the authorities will take the amount of income going into a house; but there are other things to be considered. First of all, they ought to take into consideration the commitments which a man may have undertaken when in good health out of a desire to do the best he can for his family. He may have made provision for insuring them. He will want to see that at a certain time in their life they have something to go on with. Are these things to he taken into consideration by the members of the council in determining whether people are in a position to pay? I have had some experience in these matters, and I contend that it is in the interests of persons themselves and of the public health that they should seek treatment as early as possible, because if they neglect to do so more serious consequences may follow. I want the Minister to consider this from a broader standpoint than from the mere localised point of view of making somebody pay a few shillings who would possibly be much better off if he were allowed to keep those few shillings.
There is a still more serious point. A man may be ill in one of these institutions, and his friends may be in a position to pay his expenses, but the man may not want anybody to pay his expenses because that would take away his individuality. The local authorities have carried out their duties satisfactorily in the past in this respect, and I think it is quite clear that if we upset them, as is now proposed by this Bill, our action will produce results in an entirely wrong direction.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: It has been said that under this Clause one authority may recover these expenses and another authority has the discretion to accept such part of the expenses as the persons
who have been maintained are able to pay. The suggestion now is that this should be made uniform by placing on the second authority the same responsibility as is placed on the first authority. What is the duty of the council? Its duty is to recover certain expenses for maintenance in an institution where the circumstances show there is a reasonable chance of recovering such expenses. Is there anybody in this House who does not think it is quite reasonable that those expenses should be recovered if the persons maintained are in a position to pay? If that is conceded, surely the objection to this Clause as it stands rests only in the fear expressed—I hope quite unreasonably—that the provision made in this Clause would act as a deterrent to those who in the interests of others should be encouraged to enter these institutions.
If I thought that this provision would act as a deterrent in those cases, then I should be inclined to vote for the Amendment, but surely it is not giving sufficient credit to the local authorities to assume that they will do anything in such cases that will act as a deterrent to persons going into those institutions for treatment. If an officer was in the habit of meeting a would-be patient at the door of the institution and saying to him, "I understand that you want to come into this institution; if so, you will have to pay 49s. a week," it is quite conceivable that the person addressed in that way might turn away and go, but that is not the practice now in the case of these institutions, and I decline to believe that it will be the practice under this Bill. The local authorities desire these people to come in in order that they may receive the necessary treatment, and surely they would not be so foolish as to do anything that would act as a deterrent. To take such a view as that is not doing justice to those who will have to exercise these powers in the future, and we have no right to assume that they would do other than that which any one of us would do under similar circumstances. Therefore, I think it is unfair to assume that there will be any deterrent if these words are retained in the Clause. The only uniformity that would be attained is that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), namely, giving a discretion
in the case of the Poor Law authority. I think there is a good deal to be said for laying down that there is a prima facie duty on the part of the authorities to recover the expenses, and the actual case in which that duty will be exercised must be left to the authorities. I believe that those authorities will act with reason and discretion as other authorities have acted under similar circumstances in the past.

Mr. MORRIS: I am inclined to agree kith the Amendment which has been moved dealing with the point we are considering. I think it is the duty of the local authority to recover the expenses in certain cases, but under the second part of the Clause there is a discretionary power to relieve the person maintained of part of the expenses. I want to put a question on this point. First of all it is the duty of the local authority, presumably, to recover the expenses, and the local authority must show to the auditor at the end of the year that it has discharged that duty. How is the local authority going to show that? Will it have to produce evidence that it has made proper inquiries? The second part of Sub-section (1) provides that:
If the council or authority are satisfied.
Presumably in that case the matter does not come before the auditor at all. If the local authority is merely to satisfy itself on this point, then there is no necessity to make what is provided in the first part of Sub-section (1) a duty of the council. I think it would be better if the whole of the clause was permissible.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I want to follow up what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy) has said by asking a further question. I understand that the obligation in the first part, of the Clause to recover the whole of the expenses must be read in conjunction with the provisions in the second part of the Sub-section which reads:
If the council or authority are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable are unable by reason of circumstances other than their own default, to pay the whole of those expenses, such part if any of the expenses as they are in the opinion of the council or authority able to pay.
I want to ask the meaning of the qualifying words "other than their own default." The way it reads in the Subsection is:
If the council are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable are unable, by reason of circumstances other than their own default, to pay the whole of those expenses.
Therefore, if the circumstances are circumstances caused by their own default then they may not ask for a part but they must demand the whole of the expenses. I notice the words are not "wilful default" but "their own default" so that if they default in payment that is not a case in which they must ask for the part but for the whole. That seems to me to be a contradiction in purpose or intention to relieve them of paying a part when they are not able to do it. I could understand the phrase if it contained the words "wilful default" because that would mean that the people relieved were in possession of funds and refused to pay but if the words remain "own default" the position is quite different.
With regard to the second part, it is quite true that circumstances may exist which make persons unable to pay, but they may not be circumstances caused by "their own default." We must pay attention to the meaning of the word "default" because "own default" means one thing and "wilful default" another thing. If the words "own default" remain, they go very far to justify what my right hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) said, that in any event they would have to pay the whole of the expenses, but my right hon. Friend did not mean any such thing.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Some of the arguments which have been used seem to be a long way from the Amendment. It has been argued that our proposal would mean presenting a bill in the first instance in full to the person who had received treatment, and that the presentation of such a bill in full might have detrimental effects even if it was afterwards reduced according to the circumstances. There is no ground for that assumption and there is no duty on the local authority to present the bill in full. We are advised that there is no obligation upon the
authority to do that. Therefore, so far as that objection is concerned the right hon. Gentleman need have no anxiety in that respect.
5.0 p.m.
Then we come to the position which has been put by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) who endeavoured to draw a distinction between this Clause and the practice of the law in relation to maternity cases. The hon. and learned Member is very careful as A, rule, but I think he may take it from me that so far as municipal and voluntary maternity homes are concerned—there are some 60 or 70 municipal maternity homes—in every case it is the practice to do what we are suggesting and it has been done without detriment to a single expectant mother. In all these cases regard is had to the circumstances of the family. The only other objection is whether we should make the Clause permissive or mandatory. I thought the Minister of Health had made that point perfectly plain. In fairness to the local authority and to the country generally I should have thought that very few people would dispute the contention, except the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Greenwood), that where people can pay they ought to pay a reasonable amount for treatment. Take the case which has been put forward, namely, that of a mother. If a mother goes into one of these maternity homes, and if she can reasonably afford to pay some amount in respect of treatment, it has always been the practice for her to do so. All that we are saying in this Clause is that in such cases local authorities should have this right and this duty, after inquiring into the circumstances of the case, as they have always done; and, indeed, all that the Clause does is to follow out what the voluntary hospitals in this country are doing to an increasing extent.
I now come to the final point of the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), although it is not really a subject that comes under this Amendment at all. He has drawn attention to the words "other than their own default." Those words mean that, if a person has dissipated the money which he ought to have used for this particular purpose, it is the duty of the local authority to proceed against him. That,
I should have thought, is a perfectly proper and fitting thing for the local authority to do, but, if there is any question as to the use of the word "wilful", that matter can be considered. It is a minor matter. From the point of view of the general intention and desirability of the Clause, I do not think there can be any question, at any rate among the great majority of the Members of the House, that it is a fit and proper Clause to put into the Bill.

Mr. WEBB: Perhaps the Committee will bear with me for a few moments while I ask a question. I do not want to believe that any controversial point is involved here; it is really a question of getting the right wording. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the point about the word "default," and has said that that will be a matter for consideration. There is, however, another point. As I understand it, what is intended is that the practice hitherto prevailing in what I would call the public health hospitals should be continued; but the practice, as between Poor Law hospitals and public hospitals, is different. I think I am right in saying that the position is that a Poor Law authority can recover, and ought by law to recover, the amount of the expenses incurred, but only the expenses of maintenance, and not the expenses of treatment, and Poor Law authorities do not in the majority of cases divide up the salaries of their medical officers and recover those from the patients. That, however, is not my point. My point is that, when they recover, they can recover, not only from the patient, but from the person who is liable to maintain that patient—the father in the case of a child, the husband in the case of a wife, and so on.
I do not think that under the Public Health Act there is any power to do more than recover from the patient, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might look into that point. I understand that he does not want to increase the deterrent effect in regard to the public health hospitals, and at present I do not think the public health authority can recover except from the patient himself. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get the wording right, and I would ask him to be good enough, between now and the Report stage, to consider the point made by my
hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) as to the meaning of the word "default," and whether it really does actually mean that a patient who has dissipated his money is to be sued for the amount if he has not got it. That would be opening a very serious door, and I do not think that that can be the meaning. You cannot get more out of a patient than the patient has got, and you cannot, I suggest, go back and say that if he had acted otherwise he would have had more money which you might have expected to receive from him. I do not think that that is feasible. In the second place, is it desired to extend the right of the public health hospital to recover, not merely from the patient, but from any relatives who can be made liable under the Poor Law to maintain that patient? I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman means that, but that is practically what the Clause means. As to the third point, with regard to the question of medical treatment, we shall come to that later.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question, because I want to be clear on this matter. In the case, say, of a labourer in receipt of £2 a week, who, as a result of saving, has put aside £50, under the present practice of the local authorities they would not charge that man any considerable sum on account of his own or his wife's stay in one of these institutions; but, as I read this Clause, the local authority would be obliged to go to the full length of taking the whole of the £50 that that labourer had saved, if they discovered that he had it, because otherwise they would not be carrying out their duty under the Clause. If that be correct, as I think it is, I put it to the Minister that there is a very grave distinction between the position which exists at present, and which may be described as reasonable, and the wholly unreasonable attitude which I think will occur under this Clause.

Mr. W. PALING: The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech said that we need not be afraid that anyone would be presented with a bill, and I think he said that the local authority would have the power, as these words stand now, to excuse anyone from payment without presenting him with a bill or going to his
house at all, and that they would make inquiries before they presented a bill. I am not quite so sure. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it does not matter what the Bill says, it is all right; but this is a definite attempt to stiffen the law with regard to the recovery of money as compared with the present position, and we are rather afraid that, if these words remain, the Clause will operate in exactly the same manner as the law operates with regard to the recovery of money from persons whose children have been fed at school. I remember that in 1921 and 1926, when school children had meals at school, the parents were presented with bills, and every attempt was made, by badgering them in season and out of season, to recover every penny of the money that had been spent on feeding their children; and it was left to the parents themselves to prove, after, in some cases, 18 months or two years, that they were not able to pay this money, before they were forgiven it. I am suspicious that exactly the same procedure will operate with regard to the recovery of money under this Clause also.
The fact that parents know that they are going to be badgered for the money if their child is fed at school makes them do everything that they possibly can to avoid having the child fed, often to the detriment of the child. They are terrified at the prospect of these bills being sent in afterwards, to add to the load of debt that they already have round their necks. There is, therefore, a deterrent effect, and if these people, however great their need for treatment may be, know that the same thing is going to operate in regard to them, it will have exactly the same effect as it has in the case of the feeding of school children. It is because we are afraid of that that we are supporting this Amendment. If it is going to operate as the right hon. Gentleman says, why should he put up such a stiff opposition to the Amendment? He says that we all want to get at the same thing, but, if that be so, why not put these words in? That would suit both parties. The present words do not suit us, for we are afraid that they will have the effect that we have described. The Minister says that they will not. Apparently there is no difference as to what we want to get at, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether the words mean that or not. I suggest
that, if the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance now, we might get on with the business.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the hypothetical case put by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), of a person who had saved money, I think it would be very difficult to distinguish between the possessions of a person who had inherited them and the possessions of a, person who had saved them, and, so long as a person had the money to pay, it would appear to me that he would be liable to pay under the law as it stands at present. If hon. Members say that they do not agree with that view, I suggest that the point would be a reasonable one to discuss on the Amendment which stands later on the Paper in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy)—in page 12, to leave out lines 7 to 15, and to insert instead thereof the words:
'A reasonable sum for expenses' shall be such reasonable sum in respect of each day of maintenance in the institution not exceeding a such representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of patients therein as shall be fixed from time to time by the council or authority.
That is an alternative suggestion for dealing with this matter, and I think it is one that we might discuss when we come to that Amendment. The purely drafting and semi-legal point raised by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), as to the meaning of the word "default," is one which is new to me, and is one upon which I do not feel competent to give an opinion, but I will certainly look into it between now and Report, and see whether it is necessary to alter or supplement the present wording. With regard to the question of the liability of persons other than those actually receiving treatment, I think it will be seen that here we are confining ourselves to a person or the person who is liable to maintain that person. That is not extending the power which local authorities now have. Under the Public Health Act, they have power, although it is not quite the same as the Poor Law power, to recover, not merely from the person
who is actually receiving treatment, but from anyone who is liable to maintain that person.

Mr. HARNEY: There is one question that I should like to ask. Suppose that a person went into an institution, and he was a person who unquestionably answered the description of one who could pay, but that there were various circumstances that would render it inadvisable to recover or to sue. In these circumstances, is not the council bound to sue, and to disregard any of the other circumstances? At the present time, although the person in question could pay, the council might think fit, looking at all the circumstances of the case, to stay their hand; but here, if once there is the ability to pay, they are bound, are they not, to disregard every other possible circumstance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That, if I may say so, is a matter which might be discussed on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to submit another point to the right hon. Gentleman. The Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago said that there was little or no difference in the Committee, but, if this Clause is not designed to enlarge the power of the local authority to recover, will he tell us what would happen in a case of the following description? Under the existing law, should a person find himself in need of institutional treatment, and, there being no voluntary hospital accommodation available, he is obliged to go to a Poor Law infirmary, no charge can be made by the institution—

Sir K. WOOD: A charge must be made.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My membership of a hoard of guardians has taught me that, when any person goes into a Poor Law institution for treatment, the guardians seldom, if ever, make a charge upon him when he has recovered and is in a position to earn wages. In such a case the patient is seldom or never charged with any sum for maintenance during the period of his stay in the institution. Here the right hon. Gentleman states, in effect, that authorities are obliged to charge a person in that position for main-
tenance during the period in which he has received treatment. However the right hon. Gentleman may theorise, in practice there are very many Poor Law guardians who, in circumstances similar to those I have described, never made a charge.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They must be satisfied that the person can pay.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman makes it compulsory here.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not if the authority is satisfied that the person cannot pay. It is exactly the same.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am suggesting that, if this does not impose a duty upon the local authority to hand in a bill to an individual in the circumstances I have described, it at least stiffens the position so far as local authorities are concerned. If the Minister's argument on Clause 5 was correct when he referred to the question of co-option and said we ought at least to have sufficient confidence in the county councils to elect the right representatives, and that we ought to give them some power over their own destiny, his argument on this Clause is wholly inconsistent, since all we are saying is that in all these various cases the power ought to be left with the local authority to define whether or not a bill should be sent in for treatment that has been received. The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that power is still in the hands of Poor Law guardians to hand a bill to any other person than, shall we say, a parent, who may be responsible for the maintenance either of his son or his daughter or grandson or granddaughter. Here again that principle is carried forward with special emphasis that the authority must charge the grandfather or grandmother in case of need, whether the charge is justifiable or whether it can be corrected or not. It seems to me in a case of that kind the permissive word ought to be included and the compulsory word deleted.
The right hon. Gentleman is always against any suggestion that may be made from these benches. He has never known the real meaning of poverty, but if he would go to one of these industrial areas and learn something about working class homes, he would realise our keenness on such matters as this. No argument the right hon. Gentleman can use could
be effective as against our suggestion that the matter should be left purely permissive, so that the county council, who know the people and know all the circumstances, should decide whether a bill should be served or not. So long as the Opposition are prepared to go so far, the Minister ought to condescend to say that, so long as the power will be in the hands of a responsible body, he is not going to compel them to use it whether they want to or not.

Mr. TOWNEND: I should not have risen but for the charge made by the Parliamentary Secretary against the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Greenwood) that he desired that those who were well able to pay for treatment should get it free. No such statement was made. What was said was that we desire that treatment should be paid for according to the ability of the individual to pay, which is quite a different thing. There is another matter I would refer to. An ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory, and when we say that the stiffening process in this Clause is going to act as a deterrent, a little experience will go a long way to prove it. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. A. R. Kennedy) said the fact that a bill might be presented to someone who went to an institution for assistance, was a matter of not so very much concern if he could afford to pay. What we have in mind in emphasing the deterrent effect of this Clause is not so very much the ability of certain people to pay but the apprehension in the minds of many who would otherwise go to an institution for treatment as to the position in which they might find themselves. I know of one case where, because of a bill having been presented which the recipient could not afford to pay, a neighbour who required treatment hesitated so long that the complaint became incurable.
I therefore ask the Minister to see if it is not possible to accept the suggestion that the law as it stands should be allowed to continue. There is no gainsaying that the words in the Clause have a very stiffening effect, and if we are going to find that the purpose for which our institutions were created is defeated, and ultimately the expense to the community is going to be far larger than anything that could be obtained by demanding accounts for a few coppers here
and there, surely, weighing both sides in the balance, the advantage to the community as compared with the expense of collecting these small accounts plus the few small additional items that might flow into the coffers of these institutions the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment and do away with the

suffering that must inevitably follow if he insists on the position he has taken up in this Clause.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 130.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[5.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col, Charles
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loder, J. de V.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Long, Major Eric


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Looker, Herbert William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lougher, Lewis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Apsley, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Forrest, W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Atkinson, C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macquisten, F. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bennett, A. J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Berry, Sir George
Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Betterton, Henry B.
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brass, Captain W.
Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Richard George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brown. Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Nowb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buchan, John
Hamilton, Sir George
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn W. G. (Ptref'ld.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.


Campbell. E. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Carver, Major W. H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Pennefather, Sir John


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Penny, Frederick George


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Perring, Sir William George


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christie, J. A
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pitcher, G.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hilton, Cecil
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Preston, William


Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Cooper. A. Duff
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Skelton, A. N


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Southby, Commander A. R. J
Waddington, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central!


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Kt. Hon. G. F.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W,
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wood, E. (Chester. Stalyb'ge a Hyde)


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Watts, Sir Thomas
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wright, Brig. General W. D.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wells, S. R.



Tinne, J. A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bellamy, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Lee. F.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W,
Sullivan, J.


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.
Townend, A E.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Warne, G. H.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondds)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett. George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams. C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall. F (York. W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Harney, E. A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next three Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield)—in page 11, line 28, after the word "inmate," to insert the words "of a maternity home or"—the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood)—in page 11, line 30, after the word "for," to insert the words "cancer or"—and the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Jenkins)—in page 11, line 30, after the word "disease," to insert the words "including tuberculosis and venereal disease"—I think that they should be discussed together, and that, if the hon. Members so desire, they should
move the second and third Amendments formally.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, after the word "in—mate," to insert the words "of a maternity home or."
The object, of this Amendment of course, is to remove maternity homes from the operation of Clause 13 and particularly from the operation of the uniform enforcement of the provision which we have just been discussing. I think that some hon. Members will know, that, as far as the development of maternity work is concerned, I can speak
with a certain amount of authority. The campaign to get maternity homes established in this country and to get them recognised, not as Poor Law institutions but as municipal institutions, lasted three years, and I took part in it, and tried to convince women, for whom these homes were intended, that it was in their best interests that they should go to them. We had to fight the perfectly natural prejudice which existed at that time against any attempt at moving a woman from her borne on two grounds. First, because she did not know anything about the great care and attention she would get in the maternity home, and secondly, because she felt in view of the stringency of the family income that it would be cheaper for her to be in her own home. We all know how public opinion and the opinion of many women was gradually converted to the belief that it was better to go to one of these homes, not only on account of the shocking housing conditions making a woman's confinement in the home so dangerous, but also because the growing complexity of modern civilisation created a category of cases that required far more expert attention than the ordinary general practitioner could give.
We have fought through all those points, and we have now a public opinion established that it is a wise thing that where there is any abnormality in connection with maternity women should go into maternity homes and be properly treated. But we are still in the experimental stage with regard to persuading women to take advantage of these homes. We have not got anything like enough of these homes really to meet the situation from the standpoint of the health of the public. We know that maternity mortality is a tremendous and an appalling problem which not the whole of the development of our health service has been able to diminish in 20 years. We know that it is work in which large numbers of progressive health authorities, including the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, have the most serious and grave concern. It is not an appropriate occasion to quote from the right hon. Gentleman's own report on the question of maternity, but the right hon. Gentleman will know to what I refer when I say that it is still in the experimental stage, and because it is still in the ex-
perimental stage, anything that shakes the present position is bound to act to the detriment of the service. For instance, the psychological effect of making a provision so that the operation of the financial arrangements in regard to municipal maternity centres are on precisely the same lines as those of the Poor Law, will in itself be a deterrent as far as a great many women are concerned. Many women would sooner die than go into the Poor Law institutions. If they think that it is merely an extension of the Poor Law institution, they will decline on that ground alone, not because it will cost more money but because they will feel that it is somehow or other going to be connected with the Poor Law.
I am not raising the question at all from the standpoint of the advisability of people paying. I am raising it from the standpoint of the whole problem, which is that you should not swop horses in the middle of the stream. Today we have a terrible rate of maternal mortality. We have a system growing up among the great health authorities as a result of which they are slowly establishing maternity homes and carrying on propaganda, and for the sake of the nation and the health of the children, that the children may be well-born, women who live in these miserable inadequate homes should, even if it is a normal confinement, allow their confinement to take place in a maternity home where they can have the benefit of all the appliances that modern science can devise. If at this time you change the system or the local authorities' present percentage grant basis, and bring this category of work inside the ambit of this Clause, I fear that it will very definitely cause a set-back to the development of these homes.
I do not propose to go over the ground and weary the Committee by reiterating arguments which have already been used. I would say, however, in regard to this method of collecting money, that have a very intimate knowledge of the mind of thousands of working women which I obtained while trying to popularise the idea of women receiving institutional treatment at maternity centres and following it up by having their confinements in maternity homes and I know that the question of incurring an expenditure in addition to the
sum which may be covered by the maternity benefit, which, if the husband is an insured person, a woman may get, or any larger expenditure than they would have incurred if they were confined at home, would make all the difference between their willingness to go into a home and their determination to stop out of it. Housewives, we know, are often very mean when it is a question of expenditure on themselves as compared with expenditure on their husbands and children. I think that they ought to take more than they do of the family income and spend it on themselves and their well-being. But that is the attitude of large masses of women to-day. They will suffer inconvenience and possibly danger in having this great experience—this great danger, going down very often, as they do, into the valley of the shadow of death—in their own homes, with all its inconvenience rather than be the cause of adding to the burden of the family by going into an institution where they may be charged more than they think they can afford.
I want the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to look at this, not from the standpoint of pounds, shillings and pence, but from the standpoint of the importance to the community that children should be well born, and from the long economic view of what we shall save to the nation when children are well born and the women are well cared for. I can conceive of no worse danger than to do anything to change the present machinery by which the experimental work is being slowly developed. There should be more encouragement given under existing legislation to local authorities, so that they can go on and extend this experiment in every possible way.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) as to the importance of making due provision for maternity and encouraging as many mothers as possible to enter maternity homes. There is no division in any quarter of the Committee on the importance of that matter and the necessity of encouragement, but I am afraid that, although the hon. Member says she has taken a considerable part in this kind of work, she has not kept very much in touch
with it lately, because, if she thinks that, under this Clause, we are swopping horses and altering the present practice, she is certainly very greatly mistaken. The provision which we are inserting in this Clause generally is already the invariable practice as far as maternity homes, both municipal and voluntary, in the country are concerned. So far from making any alteration, this Clause really sets out what is the universal practice of the voluntary maternity hospitals and homes to require that inmates or their relatives should pay what they can for the service. Some 60 or 70 municipal maternity homes up and down the country, all of them, recover appropriate contributions unless they are satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the inmate, that nothing can be paid. Therefore, there is no ground whatever for saying there is any alteration in the practice or for anyone being frightened away from the maternity homes of the country by the application of this Clause. If the hon. Member had made inquiries, she would have found that it is exactly the practice that is in operation with regard both to municipal and voluntary homes at the present time. In all cases where the authorities are satisfied, as will be set out in this Clause, that the inmates can pay a reasonable amount, that amount is charged. Therefore, as far as maternity homes are concerned under this Clause there is no alteration in the practice. We are simply setting up in this Clause exactly the practice in regard to voluntary and municipal homes which exists at the present time.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The defence which is being put up becomes more and more extraordinary as we proceed. On the last Amendment it was admitted that we were making a substantial change in the law and the practice now the Bill is being defended on the ground that no change whatever is being made in the practice of local authorities. That is not the fact. If it be true that the maternity hospitals are now charging their inmates up t) the hilt then, quite clearly, there is no need for this Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: I did not say that.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is what the Clause says.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think we are quite clear about that.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If there is one thing that my hon. Friends have been led to believe as the result of the discussion on the last Amendment, it was that it is the duty of the local authority to charge as much as can be got out of the inmates. That is, surely, what Clause 13 will mean. If that is to be the law, and I understand that is so, then, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman cannot defend the present position as against this Amendment by saying that the practice is not being altered. It is not the practice to-day for municipal authorities to charge up to the hilt for maintenance in maternity hospitals. In most cases, I think I am right in saying, there is a maximum charge which I believe is far too high and which many medical officers know to be a deterrent, and in many cases reductions are made below that charge, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and not having regard to the £50 which is in the bank, to which my hon. Friend referred.
There has been a great campaign in favour of dealing more drastically and more successfully with the problem of maternal mortality. There is a widespread recognition of the need for a large increase in the number of maternity homes and hospitals. The supply is inadequate. Those that exist, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of many medical officers, are not as valuable as they might be because the charges that are already being made are prohibitive and deter women from going there during their period of confinement. I think that is beyond any contradiction, and the only effect of Clause 13 will be to make it even more prohibitive in the case of the poor people. It is not only here that the right hon. Gentleman is hitting the maternity service. He is going to abolish the percentage grant, to discourage the local authorities from carrying on this work, and to penalise those who have carried it on in the past, and now he is going to impose a maximum charge upon the people who are inmates of maternity homes and hospitals during confinement.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that we are all agreed in wanting the maximum amount of provision and that
we all desire to care for the mothers. Those are good intentions. The way to hell is paved with good intentions, and we are getting very little out of the Government except expressions of good intentions. We must insist on this Amendment which is a substantial one and one on which we did think the right hon. Gentleman would have been prepared to make a small concession. The fact that he is not prepared to do so only confirms me in my view of the Clause as one of the most dangerous, most unfortunate and most disastrous Clauses in a disastrous Bill.

Captain MACMILLAN: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) is very fond of dealing in superlatives. I think that in regard to this Amendment and the one before it the confusion, if any, exists largely on the side of the Opposition. In the early part of their argument they led us to think that they disapproved of any contribution at all from those who were treated in the institutions. Then they went on to argue that they approved of the contributory principle, so long as it was based upon a due relation to the circumstances of the patient. In this particular Amendment we are only arguing whether or not maternity homes should be one of those cases upon which contributions should be levied. We are not arguing the point which was raised on the last Amendment. The Minister met that point and gave his reasons for thinking that the legal effect of the Clause was simply to extend the present system, and he promised to look into any specific point raised by the hon. and learned Member opposite. Now, we are only discussing whether the Clause being so drawn this particular class of treatment is or is not to be among those classes in respect of which payment is to be recovered.
As I understand the Clause, and I think the Minister has already confirmed it, all that the Clause does, broadly speaking, is to say that certain duties are now performed by certain local authorities, that those duties will be transferred to other authorities, and that as the duty of carrying out this work is to be transferred, so the obligations in regard to the recovery of payments are to be transferred. We abolish certain authorities and give their duties to other
authorities, and as we change the authority which is to carry on the work so we transfer to the new authority the present obligations of the old authority. The Clause will be supported on this side from that point of view, if we understand it to mean that the Clause, broadly speaking, has the legal effect of carrying out the present system.

Mr. HARNEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that in this Clause they are only doing with reference to maternity institutions what has been the practice with regard to maternity homes and voluntary institutions. I accept that statement, but it seems to me that there is all the difference in the world between practice and law, and the objection which I have to this Clause is that what you do as a matter of practice and what you might or might not follow, you now place yourselves under the obligation to do, and cannot depart from it. The vice of this Clause is this, that in the voluntary institutions at the present time it is possible for, say, a poor girl who has given birth or is about to give birth to an illegitimate child to go for treatment. Her father may be in a position to pay, but at present she can say to the authorities of that voluntary home: "In mercy to me, do not sue my father. Do not let my father know, because it will mean ruin to me." A score of other circumstances, any sympathetic person, knowing the world, can conjure up. What does this Clause say? It says: "Let that girl go into the home and let her circumstances be such that any kindly or fair-minded person in the world would say 'Mum!'," but the Clause goes on to say: "You must not be Mum, if her father has money. You must sue him, you must recover and you must expose the girl. Unless you do so, you will be surcharged by the auditors." That, to my mind, is the real vice of the Clause.
When we were debating the previous Amendment, I pointed out that persons who went into these institutions which were not of the pauper status had the benefit of being able to exercise an option as to whether they would be sued or not, but I said that this option was taken away provided there was money available. We say that in the case of maternity homes there should be the same opportunities for secrecy that the
Bill provides in the case of infectious diseases hospitals. Why do you make an exception in the case of infectious diseases? Because you know that it would be a cruel thing if, say, a young man went into a home suffering from venereal disease, and you were to tell his father, because the father happened to have money and could pay for his treatment. Do hon. Members think that that would be fair? In regard to a young man suffering from such a disease you say to him that if his circumstances are brought to the notice of the authorities they would consider it right to place a blanket of protection and secrecy over his misfortune, even though the father might have money and could pay for his treatment. That exception is made. Surely hundreds of cases must arise where the same salutary obscurity should be given in regard to the misfortune of a woman.

Sir FRANK MEYER: While everyone must have sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) and for similar cases where it would be a very grave hardship that very desirable secrecy should not, be maintained, I do not think that the Amendment which we are discussing deals in a proper way with such a case, because the Amendment, if we were to pass it, would mean that in no case could there be any charge if anyone went into a maternity home. If that is not so, I entirely misunderstand the purport of the Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The purpose of the Amendment is to take maternity homes out of the Clause just as infectious diseases hospitals are taken out of the Clause, and whereas in the one case no charge is made, in the case of maternity hospitals the law will remain as it is now, where a charge can be made if the local authorities think fit.

Sir F. MEYER: If that can be accepted as the purport of the Amendment, it alters one's view. On reading the Clause along with the Amendment it seemed to me that maternity homes would be excluded entirely, just as infectious diseases hospitals are excluded. There is a good reason for not making the charge in regard to treatment for infectious disease because a person has no option, and is compelled to go into a hospital or institution when suffering from certain in-
fectious diseases, whereas maternity cases are entirely optional. The number of people who go into maternity homes in proportion to the population is very small. I shall be interested to hear in further discussion of the Clause whether the view which I take of the Amendment is correct, or whether the view put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is correct.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should not have risen except for the misstatements which have been made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) who, quite erroneously, said that the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that no local authorities could make any charge in respect of a maternity institution. That is entirely incorrect. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the law as it, is at present. I am quite sure the Minister of Health will agree with that statement. A charge can be made by a local authority of such an amount as it thinks reasonable.

Captain MACMILLAN: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said about the effect of the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite say that the Amendment would leave the law as it is to-day. The Government say that the Clause leaves the law as it is at present.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is the second point to which I was coming. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees says that the effect of the Clause is to leave the law as it is at present. The Minister of Health says nothing of the kind. He says that there is a change in the law; a change which he thinks is desirable. Let us see what the change is. It is threefold. In the first place, a local authority must make a charge. At the present time it is within their option whether they make a charge or not. In the second place, a local authority must make the whole charge. At the present time it can make a part charge if it so desires. In the third place, a local authority, in estimating the charge, must take the whole of the expenses into account. The Minister of Health himself admits that where a man has any means in the shape of savings a local authority under this Bill must take the whole of
those savings in order to cover the charge. A local authority can strip, must strip, a man of all he has got in order to satisfy the provisions of this Bill. The Minister has, in fact, admitted that, and all that this part of the Clause says is that where a local authority is satisfied that a man has money, then it is obliged by this Clause to strip him of all that money in order to meet the charge. The Minister of Health does not say that there is no change in the law. There is a change, and the object of the Amendment is to say that, as far as maternity homes are concerned, they shall remain as they are at present.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that even the hon. Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has completely elucidated the position. I propose to have a still further try. It is quite true that, if the Amendment is carried it will not deprive local authorities as the successors of boards of guardians of any of the power to recover, but in Sub-section (4) there is a saving Clause to the effect that:
Nothing in this section shall affect any right which a local authority may have under any enactment or otherwise, to recover expenses other than those to which the foregoing provisions of this Section apply.
I think it is true that it would still leave power to the local authority, and in so far as the guardians are concerned, or the local authority is concerned, if it works under the Poor Law there still remains the duty on the local authority as the successor to the board of guardians to recover the expenses of a person treated in a maternity home and in an institution under the Poor Law. That is how the law stands at present and that is how the law would be in future. My right hon. Friend argued that although there would be a change in the law, it would not make any change in the present practice. That is a very important matter. What we have to consider is whether, in fact, the present practice is so deterrent that inmates will not go into these maternity homes because of the charges which are made. I am bound to say that I have no evidence of that. On the contrary, I think the great difficulty is not so much that people will not go into these institutions as the fact that there are not sufficient homes
to accommodate them. What would be the result of the Amendment? You are going now to single out maternity homes and say that they are to be treated in the same way as infectious hospitals. It is true that local authorities would still have power; but the fact that you exempt or except these maternity homes from the treatment you give to every other kind of institution clearly points to an intention of Parliament that local authorities shall not make the same rules in regard to them as they make in regard to other institutions, and if the Amendment is carried the effect in practice would be, at any rate, largely to abolish payment for treatment in maternity homes.
That may or may not be a good thing. Hon. Members opposite think it would be good, but as one who desires to see the maternity services developed I ask them to consider two points. The first is that we are faced with this fact, that there are not a sufficient number of maternity homes. We want more provided; but if there is some difficulty to-day in getting local authorities to provide more maternity homes there will be still greater difficulty in the future to get them to build new homes if they are faced with the prospect that when they have built them they are going to be a heavy charge upon them because they will not be able to recover expenses. In the second place, the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) said: why not put maternity homes in

the same category as infectious hospitals? There is one reason, and a very good reason. There is no competition between infectious hospitals provided by a local authority and a voluntary hospital. The infectious disease hospitals have a monopoly; but there is competition in maternity homes between private and voluntary maternity homes; and if hon. Members say that the voluntary homes shall be free—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We do not say that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I know, but I am trying to point out that that must inevitably be the effect. It is my opinion that it would make it very difficult for local authorities to make any charge for maternity purposes. That would be a very bad thing for the maternity services and it would discourage local authorities in the provision of maternity homes. I take this opportunity of saying what I rather hinted at a little while ago, that when we come to the Amendment on the Paper relating to the question of some alteration in the scope of this Clause—I cannot discuss it now—I am prepared to consider widening the scope of the discretion of local authorities, not in regard to maternity homes alone but to all the institutions covered by the Clause.

Question put, "That those word; be there inserted?"

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 250.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[6.11 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hirst, G. H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vain)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Baker, Walter
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hollins, A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Day, Harry
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barr, J.
Dennison, R.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, C.
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bellamy, A.
Dunnico, H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bondfield, Margaret
Edge, Sir William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Briant, Frank
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, J. P.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bromfield, William
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Buchanan, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, F. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Grundy, T. W.
Livingstone, A. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W.R. Normanton)
Longbottom, A. W.


Compton, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lowth, T.


Connolly, M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lunn, William


Cove, W. G.
Hardie, George D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harney, E. A.
MackInder, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)


March, S.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Maxton, James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Viant, S. P.


Montague, Frederick
Sexton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Morris, R. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Warne, G. H.


Mosley, Sir Oswald
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, H.
Shinwell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Naylor, T. E.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Oliver, George Harold
Smillie, Robert
Wellock, Wilfred


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, J. C.


Palln, John Henry
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Paling, W.
Stamford, T. W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Taylor, R. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Riley, Ben
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Windsor, Walter


Ritson, J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wright, W.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Tomlinson, R. P.



Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cope, Major Sir William
Haslam, Henry C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Albery, Irving James
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hills, Major John Waller


Atkinson, C.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hilton, Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holt, Capt. H. P


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bennett, A. J.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bethel, A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ertkine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hurd, Percy A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brass, Captain W.
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fleiden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Richard George
Forrest, W.
Lamb, J. O.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Long, Major Eric


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Looker, Herbert William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lougher, Lewis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Buchan, John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Glyn, Major R, G. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Bullock, Captain M.
Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, F. A.


Burman, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Grace, John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harland, A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.




Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Nicholson, 0. (Westminster)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Waddington, R.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sandon, Lord
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nuttall, Ellis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warner Brigadier-General W. W.


Oakley, T.
Savory, S. S.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Pennefather, Sir John
Shepperson, E. W.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Penny, Frederick George
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, S. R.


Perring, sir William George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Pitcher, G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Preston, William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Raine, Sir Walter
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ramsden, E.
Storry-Deans, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Womersley, W. J.


Rentoul, G. S.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinne, J. A.
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Warrender.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): Mr. Bennie Smith.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understood that the three Amendments dealing with cancer, tuberculosis and venereal disease were to be taken as one discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that these subjects were not discussed on the previous Amendment and I do not think I could very well take Divisions on them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can we put a question to the Minister on one of the Amendments?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, if some information is wanted. Does the hon. Member wish to raise any particular point?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, on the second of the Amendments, which refers to tuberculosis and venereal disease.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) will move the Amendment standing in his name.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to move, in page 11, line 30, after the word "disease," to insert the words "including tuberculosis and venereal disease."
I was under the impression that we were to have a general discussion not only affecting maternity cases and homes, but also tuberculosis and venereal disease, and that in the discussion on the Amendment relating to maternity homes we were dealing with all the subjects
raised in this Amendment. I hope it may be possible for you to rule that, although tuberculosis and venereal disease have not been specifically mentioned in the previous discussion, it may nevertheless be possible for the Committee to express its opinion by dividing on these two classes of cases—tuberculosis and venereal disease cases.

The CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is put, I cannot well prevent discussion.

Sir K. WOOD: It may save time and discussion if I say that we put this particular Amendment before our legal advisers, and they advised us that both tuberculosis and venereal disease could be regarded as coming within the meaning of this Clause relating to infectious diseases, and that therefore the Amendment was unnecessary.

Mr. WEBB: I would like to ask a further question as to what is included among infectious diseases. We are told that tuberculosis is included. I do not want to contradict or to express any objection to the medical point of view, but as a matter of fact the infection from tuberculosis is a very slow one and not as important, for instance, as infection from small-pox. I want to know whether the words "infectious disease," which we are told include tuberculosis, also include cancer. Is the Minister prepared to say that cancer is not infectious in much the same sense that tuberculosis is? I want to know what the law is. I do not dispute about venereal disease, although I should have thought
that that was contagious rather than infectious. Will anyone assert with conviction that cancer is not slowly infectious? It is important that the Minister should consider on Report whether he ought to add cancer in order to cover it in the Clause. This Amendment merely suggests adding tuberculosis and venereal disease. If the right hon. Gentleman means to include tuberculosis, how can he exclude cancer? There is far greater public interest, or at least as much, in the one as in the other.

Sir K. WOOD: All that I have stated to the Committee is that there is no need to add to the Clause the words of this Amendment, because tuberculosis and venereal disease are already included. Cancer is another matter altogether.

Dr. DAVIES: The Minister is taking rather an important step now. If you are to say that infectious diseases are to include, in all cases, tuberculosis and venereal disease, how are you going to keep out infantile paralysis, encephalitis lethargica and influenza?

The CHAIRMAN: We are now embarking on a subject which there are very few Members capable of following. The Minister has merely stated that these words as a matter of definition will include certain complaints.

Sir H. SLESSER: I want to know where we are in the matter of definition. There is in the Bill no definition at all of infectious disease. We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that he is advised that infectious disease includes tuberculosis. The position is very unsatisfactory. I am not asking on what basis his advice proceeded, but I want to know where we are. Is there no Act that defines infectious disease? If so, this Bill ought to be re-drafted so as to say that the words "infectious disease" here have the meaning attached to them in some other Act. Or does the right hon. Gentleman mean that as a question of medical fact infectious disease includes these particular things? It is very little use his telling the Committee that he is advised that the words mean this or that unless he says in what Statute they have that meaning. If there be any doubt on the question, what is the objection to adding to the defini-
tion of "infectious disease" certain specific diseases which are on the borderline and which the Government intend to include?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The last words of the hon. and learned Member give colour to his interpositions in these debates—interpositions which raise interesting legal arguments. The Committee, I am sure, never wants the legal arguments if a little common-sense will solve the problem. Fortunately most of us understand the English language, and the words "infectious disease" are not a term of art which lawyers use and which require an interpretation Act. They are words which mean that a disease is infectious and, that so long as people are at large, may result in injury to other persons. The result is that people who suffer from what are, in fact, infectious diseases are required in the public interest to go into an institution for treatment. The question is, what are in fact infectious diseases. Everyone agrees that tuberculosis and venereal disease are, in fact, infectious diseases. Then the question is as to whether some other diseases are not infectious diseases. You will not arrive at a solution of this question merely by putting in "tuberculosis and venereal disease," because by including some words you tend to the exclusion of others. I think it is better to leave the question of what is an infectious disease to be solved by proper evidence of fact, if ever such question arises, and I have very little doubt that these questions of fact will be solved by the common-sense of the doctors and authorities without any necessity to resort to a Court of Law.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the reason why these words cannot be added?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I dissent from the reading which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has just given. I can foresee my colleagues of the medical profession having to administer this Measure, and they must know what cases they are dealing with, and what cases they are not dealing with under it. In the ordinary terminology of public health the phrase "infectious disease" has a definite meaning. It is defined by an Order of the Ministry of Health, interpreting certain Acts of Par-
liament in relation to infectious diseases. There is a specific catalogue of the diseases which are included in this definition. It is easy to administer a Measure of this kind on those lines, but, if my hon. and learned Friend had the good fortune to belong to the medical instead of to the legal profession, and if he, as a medical officer, had to try to work the administration of Acts relating to infectious diseases on the lines which he himself has suggested, he would find it an impossible task. You must have it laid down what diseases are to be regarded as infectious diseases. For practical purposes, venereal disease is not called an infectious disease, and certainly nobody has ever suggested that cancer is an infectious disease. I suggest that the Minister of. Health might reconsider this question in order to insert in the definition Clause towards the end something as regards the words "infectious disease" being definitely associated with the term as generally interpreted in other Acts.

Miss LAWRENCE: Does the Minister tell us that surgical tuberculosis is included in this definition? I ask that question because there is no disease which afflicts children more than surgical tuberculosis. May I not have an answer to that question? I particularly want to know if surgical tuberculosis may be treated free, because it is a very important question?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot extract answers from Ministers.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Judging from the conflict between Members on the Front Bench opposite and Members behind them, and the conflict between the representatives of the Ministry and the Attorney-General on the one side and the representatives of the medical profession on the other, it is evident that more clarity is needed in connection with this Clause. The Attorney-General has just said that persons suffering from infectious diseases are required to go into institutions but what are the infectious diseases the victims of which are required to go into institutions? Does that apply to all infectious diseases? If so, we want a definition of infectious diseases. [Laughter.] All this seems to cause merriment on the other side of the Committee but it will be no cause of
merriment to those who may suffer later from the obscurities of this Clause. The hon. Member who has just asked the question about surgical tuberculosis is entitled to a clear answer because that is a vital question affecting a large number of persons. The Attorney-General and the Minister of Health would do well to accept the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) and take this Clause back in order to insert a definition of what the Government mean in this connection.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The Committee have now reached a stage at which I think the members of the medical profession and of the legal profession should be asked to retire and confer for the benefit of the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown a willingness to meet to a certain extent the proposals which have been made, but I would draw attention to the fact that, in any event, cases of cancer are not to be brought within the definition given by the Minister. The right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) earlier in the Debate gave one instance of how the Clause would affect a hospital specially dealing with cases of cancer.

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the question of cancer. That arose on the earlier Amendment.

Mr. SMITH: I understood that the Amendment, on which we recently voted dealt exclusively with the question of maternity homes. The reason why I raised the point of Order a little while ago was in order to ensure that the two subsequent Amendments might be given some consideration.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has himself moved this Amendment which is to insert the words "including tuberculosis and venereal disease" and it comes after the Amendment relating to cancer.

Miss LAWRENCE: As has already been said, there seems to be a certain amount of merriment on the other side of the Committee about this question of infectious diseases. But the point which I am putting is a very important one. We are most anxiously concerned with the treatment of surgical tuberculosis, particularly in children. This is not the sort of tuberculosis that we
all think about generally. It is a disease of the bones and it is very important for those children who suffer from it, if they are to have the long difficult and expensive treatment necessary, given to them free. It is little short of a scandal that the Minister of Health should not be able to tell us, here and now, whether he means that this particularly cruel disease is to be treated free or not. I ask him once more, does he intend that surgical tuberculosis shall come under free treatment or not?

Sir K. WOOD: I am very glad to do my best—as I always hope to do—to meet the wishes of the hon. Lady. It is not a question of my opinion but a question of fact as to whether a disease is infectious or not. If my opinion is of any value I should say certainly tuberculosis would be included, but that is only my opinion, and, as I say, this is a question of fact. I would also point out that the question does not arise as to whether this treatment ought to he free or not. What we have been discussing this whole afternoon since 4 o'clock has been a question of whether in certain circumstances a reasonable charge should he made. At any rate in dealing with the Amendment which is now before the Committee I have stated the advice which has been given to us and the point of view of my Department. The advice which we have received is that this Amendment is unnecessary. The question as to whether a particular disease does or does not come within the definition, is, I repeat, obviously a question of fact.

Miss LAWRENCE: Then I understand that the Minister does not know what his own Clause means. Here is a business which has been for a very long time

exciting the most serious attention of the Minister and his Department. In Report after Report we find statements that they are making improvements in connection with this matter but that the treatment does not keep pace with the disease. Now we have the Minister telling the Committee that he does not know whether he is going to allow free treatment of this particular illness or not—an illness which his own Department is watching carefully. I say again that it is little short of a scandal that the Minister should seek to press this Clause through the Committee when he himself does not understand it.

Mr. WEBB: I suggest one more point to the right hon. Gentleman. We are discussing this Bill on the faith of the Memorandum issued by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health describing what it does. In that Memorandum is the definite statement that the term "infectious disease" includes tuberculosis. Therefore we are discussing the Bill on that assumption. It was because some of us had certain doubts that an Amendment was put down to make it clear. The right hon. Gentleman says it is clear that the term does include tuberculosis. The Memorandum made it definite that it included tuberculosis. You cannot say that the term includes tuberculosis, and then say that that does not mean surgical tuberculosis or any other kind of tuberculosis. We must take in on the faith of the Minister's statement that tuberculosis is included in the term "infectious disease" and that, therefore, it includes surgical and every other kind of tuberculosis.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145: Noes, 258.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[6.43 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Wait)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Harry


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Dennison, R.


Baker, Walter
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Duncan, C.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cape, Thomas
Dunnico, H.


Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.
Edge, Sir William


Barr, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Fenby, T. D.


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Forrest, W.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Connolly, M.
Gardner, J. P.


Bellamy, A.
Cove, W. G.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Bondfield, Margaret
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbins, Joseph


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Gillett, George M.


Briant, Frank
Davies, David (Montgomery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cant.)


Broad, F. A
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bromfield, William
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James
Sullivan, Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, R. H.
Taylor, R. A.


Hamilton, Sir B. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Thorns, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Harney, E. A.
Murnin, H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Warne, G. H.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Potts, John S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rees, Sir Boddoe
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben
Welsh, J. C


Jones, T. I Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wiggins, William Martin


Kennedy, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lindley, F. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Livingstone, A. M.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, Walter


Longbottom, A. W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, W.


Lowth, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lunn, William
Smillie, Robert



MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Abersvon)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mackinder, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


MacLaren, Andrew
Stamford, T. W.
Whiteley.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gates, Percy


Albery, Irving James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gower, Sir Robert


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grace, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grant, Sir J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, A. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cope, Major Sir William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Berry, Sir George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bethel, A.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hammersley, S. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hanbury, C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Crookshank, Cot. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harland, A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hills, Major John Waller


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hilton, Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holt, Captain H. P.


Buchan, John
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkins, J. W. W


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Fleiden, E. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitch'n)


Campbell, E. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Iveagh, Countess of




Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oakley, T.
stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Strauss, E. A.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Pennefather, Sir John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Loder, J. de V.
Pilcher, G.
Tinne, J. A.


Long, Major Eric
Preston, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Lougher, Lewis
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Waddington, R.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rentoul, G. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Warrender, Sir Victor


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ropner, Major L.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Margesson, Capt. D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wayland, Sir William A.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rye, F. G.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Withers, John James


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savory, S. S.
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smithers, Waldron



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Nuttall, Ellis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out from the word "disease" in line 30 to the first word "the" in line 31.
So far the Committee has been discussing as to the obligation that shall rest upon the local authority to demand payment in respect to treatment in an institution from the person who is so treated, but in addition to that particular proviso in the Clause, there is an amplification of the liability in this sense, that., not only shall the person who is so treated be liable, but also
any person legally liable to maintain that person.
The problem, therefore, that arises is clearly this: Who is it that may be said to be legally liable for a person treated in an institution? Recent experience leads us to entertain some sort of apprehension as to what might be held to be the exact meaning of these words. Let me cite, from my own experience, a recent example, not, I admit, arising out of the administration of the Ministry of Health, but to show the spirit that is entering into this particular matter. Some time ago, the Committee will remember, a
number of harvesters were sent from this country to Canada, and among them was a person from my own constituency. He left his family without any visible means of subsistence, and they became chargeable to the guardians. In due time the board of guardians, having this family-left upon their hands and not being able to apply to the husband because he was away, applied to the husband's father. Now, clearly if that kind of principle is going to be applied, no sort of relative will be entirely free from the implications of this phrase. Anyhow, it would be appropriate that we should get from the Minister what exactly is meant by this phrase "legally liable."
The learned Attorney-General, in the last discussion, told us that the way out of our difficulty was to rely upon common-sense, but common-sense, I am afraid, does not assist us very much in this matter. Does it seem common-sense, for instance, that the father, an old gentleman, shall be held liable for the maintenance of his son's family? Take another case. Does it sound like common-sense that a grandfather who has long since given up work shall be held
liable for the maintenance of his grandchild in charge of Poor Law guardians? Does it sound like common-sense that the grandmother, in the absence of a grandfather, who may be dead, shall be held liable? I am not imagining things at all. I am quoting things that have in fact happened in the experience of many Members on this side. It is quite easy for the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to assure us that common-sense will apply, but there stands in the background of these discussions the somewhat ominous figure of the Ministry of Health auditor, and he may have views upon this matter that are not entirely dictated, from our point of view, by common-sense.
May I put one or two hypothetical cases that will perhaps help the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate what would be the law and the interpretation of the law in this case? Let us return for a moment to the discussion of a maternity case, and assume that a mother has entered a maternity home for the birth of her child. It may very well be that the father of this child may have died; it may be a posthumous child. The mother is too poor, and the father is dead; who, in that case, is to be held to be legally liable for the maintenance of this particular patient in a maternity home? What does common-sense say? I should like to hear the Attorney-General's view. If common-sense does not assist us, what does the law say? New let us assume another case, a perhaps more difficult case. Let us assume that an unmarried woman goes into a maternity home to give birth to her illegitimate child, and the putative father places the sea between him and his responsibility. The mother being too poor to maintain the child, who in that case is going to be held to be legally liable? Is it the putative father's father?
This is a most important matter, because, as we now find this particular Clause being interpreted in practice, all kinds of relations are being drawn into some sort of imaginary responsibility for these people. Step-fathers, step-brothers, step-mothers, relatives two or three times removed, are being called upon to face financial responsibility where relatives have become a burden on the public finances. It is all very well to regard this as a somewhat humorous subject, but we have to realise that large num-
bers of these people who might quite rightly be regarded as legally responsible are nowadays, in very large areas of the country, passing through very distressing times; and if this Clause receives the endorsement of the House, it really becomes a serious matter for these persons, because if they are called upon to bear these responsibilities in addition to their own, which they find already sufficiently hard to bear, then the carrying of this particular phrase in the Clause will involve them in real financial hard ship. Therefore, in order to limit the responsibility involved in the maintenance of the patients to the patients concerned, I beg to move this Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there need be any difficulty about this matter or any prolonged Debate. There is a statutory provision in this matter, and I think it must have escaped the recollection of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), because I know he has had a large experience in local administration and that kind of work, and I do not know why there should be any doubt or difficulty in his mind on the subject. I am afraid he has forgotten the position. Of course, the definition is well known, and has been on the Statute Book ever since the days of Elizabeth. The hon. Member will find it now in Section 41 of the Poor Law Act, 1927. I do not suppose the hon. Member will desire to press the matter further, but, if he is pressing it on the merits, what it amounts to is this, that just because a person enters an institution, if the Amendment is carried, there is to be no liability upon the persons mentioned, whereas if he is outside the institution there is to be a liability. Obviously, one could not agree to a suggestion of that kind. There are also numerous cases where children would be receiving benefit, and no one would suggest that their parents should not pay in respect of them, but that would be one of the consequences of the Amendment. I oppose the Amendment, first, on the ground of liability to maintain and relieve as laid down in the definition; secondly, because one could not sustain the position of a person not being liable just because a person went into an institution; and, thirdly, because on the merits parents should pay, if they can
afford it, in accordance with their circumstances. On all those grounds, I say that the Amendment must be rejected, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman did not do justice to my hon. Friend's contention. It is true that under Section 41 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, it is made the duty of the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and so on of a person not able to work or of a poor person to relieve and maintain such a person.

Sir K. WOOD: If they are possessed of sufficient means.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is not my point at all. That liability for maintenance is confined entirely to cases of the Poor Law. Nobody is going to dispute for a moment that under the existing Poor Law that is the law, but here we have an entirely different situation. Under Clause 13 of this Bill I understood that the liability here was to be approximated more or less to the liability under the Public Health Acts. I am led to that conclusion particularly for this reason. When we look at the definition of an institution, for example, we find that it is an institution provided by the council of a county or county borough under the Public Health Acts. Again, the analogy was given us of the case of the maternity benefit where we were told that the practice there was so to use the Maternity Act that there persons might be made liable to pay. But that is outside the Poor Law and the obligation to maintain, which is contained in Section 41 of the Poor Law Act and is confined entirely to Poor Law cases, does not in itself apply at all to cases dealt with under the Public Health Act, the Maternity Act or any Act other than the Poor Law.
The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that on merits he is going to amend the law and extend the obligation to maintain their relatives, as laid down in the Poor Law, to this class of case. If he will say that quite frankly we know the case we have to meet. But it is no use confusing the Committee by suggesting that Section 41, which deals with the maintenance of persons who come under the Poor Law, is now to apply to persons who come under Clause 13 of this Bill.
Therefore, following the invitation which was extended to me by the Attorney-General some time ago to come to common-sense, I say that the commonsense of the matter is that we are dealing with an entirely different situation from the Poor Law. The Committee will allow me to deal with the law first. It is all very well to say that we should come to common-sense in the matter of law, but when the law is confusing, we must clear away the bad law before we come to the facts. Let us sweep away the question of the Poor Law and ask the Minister of Health and the Government whether they intend, in the administration of this Clause, which would involve administration under the Public Health Acts and other Acts other than the Poor Law, to enforce the old obligation under the Elizabethan Poor Law and to apply it to cases where you had no Poor Law in the past. It is a most important question, and it is one to which we are entitled to have a concrete and definite reply. Is it going to be the fact, as my hon. Friend says, that for the first time every purely public health service is going to make the father, grandfather, son and grandson, and all such persons liable for expenditure incurred on persons relieved by the public health authorities? Having cleared away the law and got to common-sense, I hope we shall have an answer from the Government whether they do mean to apply the doctrine laid down under the Public Health Acts, or whether they do not.

Mr. MARCH: I desire to support the Amendment. It is all very well for the Minister to brush these things aside as though they were a mere nothing, but it is puzzling to know what they really do mean. When we read the Clause, we find that they can charge the whole expenses. A little time ago the Minister of Health said there was no such thing as the whole of the expenses in this Clause, but it is there in two places. They can recover the whole of the expenses if the people are in a position to pay. I should like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary some cases which have come to my knowledge. Close by where I am living there are a man and wife with four children. The man's mother is a widow unable to keep herself in her home, and she has come to live with him. He has taken
her in because he has got a little room. She has gat a little money and is just able to maintain herself. Supposing she fell ill or met with an accident and had to go to an institution, are you going to hold that son fully responsible as being the legal representative to pay the expenses that might be legally incurred through that women being taken away? In another case I know of an elderly man with his wife and sister who has come to live with them because she is GO and has rheumatism, and cannot do her usual work. They have no money, but they are struggling on to try to keep her out of the workhouse. They never know when she may fall down and hurt herself. It would be too much of a liability for these two elderly people to look after her, and she would be taken into an institution. Is that man to be legally responsible for the maintenance of his sister? They have not been legally liable to maintain her at all. If they had not been sympathetic, she must probably have gone straight into an institution.
This Clause seems aimed at the people who are trying to assist their unfortunate friends. Take another case. What would happen in the case of a young woman who has been in service for six years. She went into service at 14 and is now 20. She has got into difficulties, and has to go into an institution to give birth to a child. Is her father to be held responsible for the maintenance of that girl though she has been away from home for six years maintaining herself in service? If hills are presented to those people, they will have recourse to the Courts if they dispute them, and will be involved in expense. Many of them would not try to defend themselves in Court, and would have to get someone to defend the case for them. It would, therefore, be much better if these words were left out, and people were not troubled in this manner.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply has shown the difficulty of the Committee right through the discussions to-day and the difficulty in the Clause. When it suits the Minister, he quotes the law of public health on the previous Amendment and in this case, when it does not suit him to do that, he quotes the Poor Law. Our objection to this Clause is that what the Minister is
trying to do is to amalgamate two entirely different codes of law. The guardians "must"; the local authorities "may." We hold it is quite undesirable that, when you are co-ordinating the local government, you should assimilate the ordinary taxpaying citizens of the country to pauper citizens under the Poor Law. That seems to me the issue, and it is only illustrative of the lack of care the Government have given in the drafting of this Bill, and their lack of regard for ordinary citizens when they try to amalgamate two entirely different codes of law and of practice inside one code of this kind. Are the local authorities to be expected to interpret Clause 13 in the light of the mandatory law applied to boards of guardians or of the permissive law applied under the Public Health Acts?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member's criticism on this occasion is a little unjustified. The provisions of this Clause merely 'amount to this, that, in connection with the relief which is given inside an institution, the local authority—that is, the council—shall be under a duty to recover from certain persons the cost of giving these services. If those services were given outside the institution, certain people would be liable to pay fir them—a father for a child or a husband for a wife. If that person goes into an institution, Clause 13 simply gives force to this principle, that the person responsible shall not escape liability because the services were given inside an institution instead of outside an institution. The question then is: who is to pay for the relief given inside the institution? We might, of course, have set out all the various persons who are liable to pay for the support of that individual, but, instead of setting it out at length, we used Section 41 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, as a dictionary, and anybody may discover who is the person legally liable by turning up that Section. This is not a question of mixing up Poor Law and Public Health Law, but merely a question of using a definition which already exists, of a certain class of person, so as to make it plain who is responsible for the payment of the expenses of relieving people inside institutions.

Mr. E. BROWN: Supposing these words were not passed: Is it now the
practice in these cases under the Public Health Acts to do what is now proposed to be done inside this definition?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is another question—

Mr. BROWN: It is a fundamental question.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: —which has been dealt with in the preceding Amendment. We are not on the question whether we should require persons inside institutions to pay for the relief given to them. We are merely on the question whether we shall extend that liability to, say, the father in respect of a child or to the husband in respect of his wife. That is a principle which is involved in the Amendment under discussion. The specific legal point as to who is liable can be sufficiently answered by referring to Section 41 of the Poor Law Act, 1927.

Mr. WEBB: The hon. and learned Gentleman is presuming on the ignorance of the Committee. He said that this Clause, instead of setting out in a long way the kind of person who is to be liable, refers to the Poor Law Act and uses that as a sort of dictionary, which will tell the public who are the persons to be liable. The Clause does nothing of the kind. It does not refer to the Poor Law Act, it does not use it as a dictionary, and it does not therefore explain the people who are legally liable. The words are:
from any person legally liable to maintain that person.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that these words are not in the least equivalent to words in Section 41 of the Poor Law Act. That Section, first of all, sets out the grandfather, the grandmother, and so on, and then defintiely limits that in various ways: first, by saying that the person to be paid for must not be able-bodied, so that, if he is able-bodied, there is no liability to maintain him at all; secondly, there is no legal liability under the Poor Law Act to maintain people as such. The liability only begins when a person is chargeable to the Poor Rate. Consequently, the words "legal liability to maintain" cannot simply be supposed to import the Poor Law Act, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was presuming on the ignorance
of the Committee, because he must have been aware that that is so.
On the point of legal drafting, these words are left entirely obscure. If the hon. and learned Gentleman means that they are to import the Poor Law Act, he must say so. They may merely import the Common Law liability to maintain. In fact, I venture to suggest that if the words "legal liability" are used alone, the Common Law liability is the very first liability of which one would think. That is very different from the liability under the Poor Law, and very much more limited. There is a third case, and that is the relevant one. This clause relates not to Poor Law institutions at all, but expressly to institutions maintained by a county or county borough under the Public Health Acts, and so on. The liability to maintain people who are in institutions run under the Public Health Acts is very much more limited than the liability to maintain under the Poor Law Acts. Section 32 of the Public Health Act, 1875, says:
Any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining in a hospital or in a temporary place for the reception of the sick (whether or not belonging to such authority), a patient who is not a pauper, shall be deemed to be a debt due from such patient to the local authority, and may be recovered from him.
Where is the liability on the person legally liable to maintain that patient? Is there any liability on the grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, stepfather, or stepmother, who are the persons liable to maintain a pauper in a Poor Law institution? The hon. and learned Gentleman said that no such liability at present obtains for patients in a public health hospital. Consequently, we are entitled to say that Clause 13 relates exclusively to institutions run under the Public Health Acts and analogous Acts, and not to Poor Law institutions, and the Government are proposing largely to extend the liability. At present the liability is on the patient only under the Public Health Act. Now the Government propose to extend that to any person who is legally liable to maintain the patient. Under the Common Law, a father is liable to maintain the child under 14, the husband is liable to maintain his wife, and the wife, if she has separate property, is liable to
maintain the husband, but the grandfather, grandmother, and so on, do not come in. The public health law is that the patient only is liable.
What do the Government mean when they say "legal liability"? There are three laws under which you may be legally liable. Both the right hon. Gentlemen have assumed that they meant the largest possible liability under the Poor Law, and throughout this Bill one can see the old Poor Law cropping up in the drafting. This Bill is drafted by Poor Law experts, and not by public health experts. To come to the point of this Amendment, are we not entitled to ask that on Report the Government shall make clear what legal liability they mean, whether they mean Common Law liability, public health liability, or Poor Law liability. Three different classes of persons would be liable under those three forms. As a matter of fact, we ask that the public health institutions, which have been maintained under present conditions without any liability except from the patient, should not be interfered with. There is no reason why, under a Measure which merely transfers the Poor Law to the public health authority, the work of the public health authority under the Public Health Acts should be seriously interfered with in this way.

Mr. PALING: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) accused the Government of drafting this Clause rather carelessly. But I am not sure that that is so, because the Government's whole intention in this Bill has been to bring public health services under the same law as applies to Poor Law services. Their policy has always been to scrape every penny they can from everybody who receives public assistance, and they are carrying out that intention in this Clause. It is true that up to the present public health authorities have not been able to claim much, and they have been limited to the number of persons from whom they can claim. Apparently, that number is not sufficient for the two Ministers who are conducting the business of the Ministry of Health, and they wan to extend it to as large a number of people as are liable under the Poor Law at present The Parliamentary Secretary said that everybody was aware of the definition of legal liability, and that it had been in operation since Queen Elizabeth. One
wonders, when one sees the kind of legislation that the Parliamentary Secretary tries to put into operation, whether he does not belong to the time of Elizabeth also. It is time that he modernised his ideas in this respect. The definition of legal liability to which he refers is:
It shall be the duty of the father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, husband or child of a poor, old, blind, lame and impotent person or other poor person not axle to work or possessed of sufficient moans, to relieve and maintain that person.
That is not the law at present with regard to public health services, and this beneficent Bill is intended to put public health services under the same operation of the law as Poor Law services. In other words, it is intended to put pressure upon more people in the future. I saw a cartoon the other week in a paper, which I think was "Punch." The Minister of Health was depicted as an executioner, and he was leading to execution a member of a board of guardians. There was a shadow of Bumble by the side of him, and Bumble said: "So you are going too." The Minister said: "No, we are only translating him."
As a matter of fact, the Minister is keeping the worst aspect of the Poor Law, and is doing his best to revive Bumbledom. Every public health authority will resent it. They admit that, even with the limited number of persons from whom they can claim now, the persons are so poor that in the majority of cases they have not the heart to make a claim. When they know that the limited number of persons is to be added to, and that they are to be compelled to claim in thousands of cases where they are not compelled to claim to-day, and when they realise that the law has been stiffened up to this extent and that they are to be put in this unenviable position in future, the opposition that has been aroused among public health authorities will be infinitely increased.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Reference has been made to the law of Elizabeth, but this Debate is enough to make Queen Elizabeth turn in her grave. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that, whatever else he wants to do, he does not want to get rid of the Poor Law, Poor Law institutions, or the
spirit of the Poor Law in this country. He has sought to incorporate in the Public Health law a most retrograde definition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has let the eat out of the bag, not only by showing what the Poor Law legal liability is, but by bringing out the public health definition of legal liability. We are seeking to provide the public health definition for all public health institutions, whereas the Government, under the cloak of abolishing boards of

guardians, are seeking here as in so many parts of the Bill to preserve intact—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 268, Noes, 145.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Harrison, G. J. C.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hartington, Marquess of


Albery, Irving James
Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cope, Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hills, Major John Waller


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Bennett, A. J
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bethel, A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bevan, S. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. w.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Iveagh, Countess of


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Braithwaite Major A. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brass, Captain W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Richard George
Forrest, W.
Lamb, J. O.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Loder, J. de V.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Long, Major Eric


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Looker, Herbert William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lougher, Lewis


Buchan, John
Gates, Percy
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burman, J. B.
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Gower, Sir Robert
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grace, John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cassels, J. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Christie, J. A.
Hamilton, Sir George
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hammersley, S, S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanbury, C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harland, A.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Waddington, R.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sandon, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Watts, Sir Thomas


Pennefather, Sir John
Shepperson, E. W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Penny, Frederick George
Skelton, A. N.
Wells, S. R.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Perring, Sir William George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Preston, William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Raine, sir Walter
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, John James


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Storry-Deans, R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Rentoul, G. S.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ropner, Major L.
Templeton, W. P



Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Rye, F. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell



Salmon, Major I.
Tinne, J. A.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bellamy, A.
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T, I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Strauss, E. A.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Livingstone, A. M.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Longbottom, A. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillettt, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the

Business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause Stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 147.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hurd, Percy A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Iveagh, Countess of


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Astor, viscountess
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Atkinson, C.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J Q.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edwards. J. Hugh (Accrington)
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bennett, A. J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Loder, J. de V.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Long, Major Eric


Berry, Sir George
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Looker, Herbert William


Bethel, A.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis


Betterten, Henry B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bevan, S. J.
Fermoy, Lord
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fielden, E. B.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forrest, W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.


Brass, Captain W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brown, Brig-.Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Buchan, John
Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bullock, Captain M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Burman, J. B.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Campbell, E. T.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Carver, Major W. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oakley, T.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir George
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harland, A.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Perring, Sir William George


Chapman. Sir S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Christie, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pitcher, G.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William


Clarry, Reginald George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ramsden, E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hills, Major John Waller
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rentoul, G. S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cope, Major Sir William
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rye, F. G.


Salmon, Major I.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Storry-Deans, R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wells, S. R.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Tasker, R Inigo.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sandon, Lord
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Savery, S. S.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Shaw. Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Tinne, J. A.
Withers, John James


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wolmer, Viscount


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waddington, R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Smithers, Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)



Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove. W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon, J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 14.—(Accounts and Audit.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 147.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Apsley, Lord


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W


Albery, Irving James
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Astor, Viscountess


Atholl, Duchess of
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Atkinson, C.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive


Bennett, A. J.
Gates, Percy
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Berry, Sir George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bethel, A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Betterton, Henry B.
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bevan, S. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Birehall, Major J. Dearman
Grace, John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Oakley, T.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boyd Carpenter, Major Sir A. B
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John


Brass, Captain W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perring, Sir William George


Briscoe, Richard George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Froms)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir George
Pilcher, G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hammersley, S. S.
Preston, William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Buchan, John
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rye, F. G.


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth Putney)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Tasker, R. Inigo


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Long, Major Eric
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waddington, R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wallace, Cantain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marqesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)




Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wolmer, Viscount



Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, R. R (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. Penny.


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Connolly, M.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Viant, S. p.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Westwood, J,


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster. Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Application to London.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, leave out from the first word "of," in line 35, to the word "shall," in line 38, and insert instead thereof the words
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section five and Section six of this Act.

In page 12, line 43, at the end, insert the words
and for the reference or delegation by the London County Council to any committee of that Council (including the public assistance committee) of any of the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money.

In page 14, leave out lines 1 to 3 inclusive, and insert instead thereof the words
assessment committees had immediately before the appointed day with regard to valuation lists for the parishes in their areas.

Leave out from the word "shall," in line 4, to the word "such," in line 14, and insert instead thereof the words:
as from the appointed day consist of such number of persons appointed, in the case of the City of London by the common council, and in the case of a metropolitan borough by the council of the borough, being members of the council, as the council may think fit, together with one person appointed by the London County Council, and the mem-
bers of the said committees shall he appointed in every year in the month of November or December, and shall hold office until their successors are appointed, so, however, that the first such committee may be appointed at any time before the appointed day, but shall not continue in office after the month of December next following:

Provided that—

(i) no person who is a member of any committee to which the duties of a rating authority with respect to the preparation of a valuation list are referred or delegated shall he qualified for appointment as a member of the assessment committee;
(ii) the London County Council may appoint a person to act for all purposes as a member of the assessment committee in substitution for the person appointed by them as aforesaid at any time when that person is unable to act;
(iii) neither the person nor the substitute to be appointed as aforesaid by the London County Council shall:be an officer of that council.

The quorum of the assessment committee shall he such number as the committee may determine, not being less than three.

No member of the assessment committee or person acting as such a member shall receive any remuneration or other like payment in respect of his services as such.

The town clerk, or in the City of London."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Clause 16 (Application to local Act guardians) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Application to unions wills appointed guardians.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of f he Lon Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) amounts to a direct negative of the Clause, and is therefore out of order.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, to leave out the words "or is made thereafter."
I move this Amendment formally, as we expect later on to have a debate on the Clause itself, when the point that I desire to make will be dealt with.

Sir H. SLESSER: There is one somewhat technical point that I wish to raise on this Amendment. When we look at the repealing Schedule, we find that
among the Acts which are to be repealed is Section 220 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, and when we look at the repealing Schedule to the Act of 1927, we find that the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, is also repealed. Therefore, it would seem to me that, whatever may be the powers under the Interpretation Act of 1888, or any other Act, to keep alive an Order already made, it cannot be that the Minister can hereafter make an Order under an Act, or under a Section of an Act, which has itself been repealed. Clause 17 of this Bill says that:
The provisions of this Act shall apply as respects any Poor Law union with respect to which an order under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Art, 1926, or Section two hundred and twenty of the Poor Law Act, 1927, constituting an appointed board of guardians for the union is in force. …
Is it not the case, therefore, that the effect of repeal from the date of the commencement of this Act will be to bring to an end Section 220 of the Poor Law Act of 1927? This matter is dealt with to some extent in the Interpretation Act of 1888, Section 35 of which deals with the effect of repeals of future Acts, and says that, when an Act under which an Order has been made is itself repealed, the repeal will not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. I submit therefore, that it cannot be that thereafter there will be power to make another Order.
I am raising this point, which it is as much in the interest of the Minister as of the Opposition to take, because it seems that my hon. Friends are going to argue the merits of these matters later on, and I suppose that, if they were gross obstructionists, as they are sometimes in heated moments suggested to he, they would be very pleased to see this Clause go through in such a form as to be unenforceable. I suggest, simply in the interests of clarity, that, whatever is going to be done by this Clause, you cannot at one and the same time repeal the Act under which existing Orders are made and also provide for the making of other Orders thereafter, because, "thereafter" being after the commencement of this Act, the Act under which the Orders have been made will have ceased to exist; and, although an existing Order may be kept alive for certain purposes under the Interpreta-
tion Act, it would be quite improper for any fresh Order to be made. There may or may not be an answer to this point, but I thought it my duty to bring it before the Committee, because it seems to me to be a point of substance, and, as I see it at present, fresh drafting will be required.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that point, but I think I can give him an answer which will be satisfactory to him. If he will turn to Clause 114 of the Bill, which deals with repeals, he will see that the proviso to that Clause states that repeals of the enactments mentioned in the Schedule shall not take effect until the date fixed as the appointed day for the corresponding part of this Act. Therefore, while it is quite true that Section 220 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, is repealed by this Bill, the repeal does not take effect until the 1st April, 1930, and the words to which the hon. and learned Gentleman is taking exception in Clause 17 deal with the period between the present date and the 1st April, 1930.

Miss LAWRENCE: Does that mean that, if Section 220 of the Act of 1927 stands, every six months an Order must be laid before the House continuing the guardians in office? If not, is it not necessary to repeal Section 220 of the Act of 1927 before Sub-section (3, a) of Clause 17 can come into effect? We ought not to have two contradictory provisions in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the same answer applies to that question also. Section 220 of the Act of 1927 only remains in force until the 1st April, 1930. As long as it is in force, there must, of course, be an Order every six months; but the Section will be repealed on the 1st April, 1930, and then Clause 17 will come into operation.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BARKER: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "until," to insert the words:
such date as he may declare not being later than.
The object of the Amendment is to leave the fixing of the date to the discretion of the Minister of Health instead of fixing it by Statute at 1st April, 1935. If the Clause is passed without
Amendment, the appointed guardians cannot be abolished before that date without legislation. The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to enable them to be abolished at an earlier date if the Minister of Health deems it necessary or desirable. The area I represent is one of the most heavily rated in the country. The rates are estimated to be 150 per cent. higher than they were in 1914. There is probably more poverty there than in any other area in Great Britain, bad as the other areas may be. We have somewhere about 0,000 unemployed. The elected guardians borrowed over £1,100,000, with the sanction of the Minister of Health. They had not been able, up to September last year, to pay off any principal, or even any interest on the loans. The present hoard have borrowed £75,000 and paid off £15,000, so that the area is £00,000 more in debt than it was before the appointed guardians took over their responsibilities.
There are several areas which, for some reason or another, have been disfranchised. There is an old axiom that taxation cannot be imposed without representation. The Minister has violated that canon and, for some reason known to himself, has disfranchised very large areas. The object of the Clause is to continue the disfranchisement of these areas until 1935, and the Amendment will leave it to the discretion of the Minister to discontinue the appointed guardians and to resume the functions of representation. It is a very reasonable Amendment. I protest with all the emphasis I can against the disfranchisement of these areas. It is a reflection upon the Government of the gravest kind that they should deprive these areas of their elected representatives. We have no redress of any kind whatever. The appointed guardians are administering the law in a most harsh, if not brutal fashion. The condition of the area is known throughout the whole of the country. Scarcely a week passes but some distinguished persons visit it and condemns the guardians' treatment of the poor. There is no reason why these areas should be selected for this special kind of treatment. They have committed no crime. The only offence that can be imputed to them is that they are very heavily in debt. Every loan that was made—I think there were about 20 altogether—
was made entirely with the sanction of the Minister, and if the Minister objected to the scale of relief it was altered at his behest every time. The guardians resented their removal in the strongest possible way. They asked the Minister to see them so that they could give him a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can go into the merits of the Act that enables the Minister to appoint guardians on this Amendment. He will be quite in order in stating that it should not continue.

Mr. BARKER: I want to ensure that these guardians shall not be entrusted with power until 1935. That is the object of the Amendment, and if you are going to rule out of order any reference that can be made to the administration of these appointed guardians, how am I going to justify the Amendment, which you yourself, Sir, have accepted? I do, not want to disobey the Ruling of the Chair, but this is a very serious matter indeed for us and for many other areas, and it is a gross reflection upon someone that the area I represent should be disfranchised. I have here a most remarkable document. The Minister of Health is not a stranger to it. It shows the condition of the area. It is signed by 10 ministers of religion, including a Roman Catholic priest and two Anglican vicars. It is dated July, and says the situation was then so serious and the impoverishment of the people so acute that the area could not recover a measure of prosperity without substantial Government aid. It gives a number of cases showing the poverty of certain of the people. We have the case of a widow with six children whose total income is 36s., out of which 15s. has to be paid for rent, leaving 21s. to mainain the family, which is 3s. a head. That is a typical case, and we have others of a similar character.
If the Minister went himself and saw what I see every time I go home, he would be shocked. Last Saturday, a child went through the town with no stockings on her feet and with her boots all burst out. There was frost and snow on the ground. We took her into the Distress Committee Rooms and put new hoots on her. If we had not casually
seen her in the street, she would have been walking about during the bitter winter and might possibly have contracted pneumonia and died. There are hundreds of cases of that character in the area, and, as the member representing it, I object as strongly as I can to its being disfranchised and: put under these irresponsible appointed guardians. I am not prepared to agree that this kind of thing should continue until 1935. It means that if we have a change of Government these people cannot be removed until we have legislation, and that will mean increasing the difficulties of the next Government, whatever Government it may be. Surely, if this matter is left to the discretion of the Minister, it is as much as the Minister could possibly ask. Why he should want it enacted by Statute that these guardians could not be removed unless the law were repealed passes my comprehension.
To penalise a neighbourhood because the collieries are not working is an outrageous and a monstrous thing, and should not be allowed to continue. This area has always been splendidly administered, and it is not the fault of the area that all this volume of unemployment is there. An area of this character should have the utmost possible freedom conceded to it, and not be disfranchised, and and have its misfortunes added to by being insulted in this way. The testimony that can be given from independent sources would convince this Committee that to-day the area is seething with destitution and misery. The Minister has taken up the attitude that the people in the area must get out of the area, but he does not say where they are to go. He shows no way out of this business. He is starving these people through these appointed guardians, and making their life nothing but a living hell. As long as I am in this House I will use all the power I have to condemn this action of the Minister in insulting some of the best people who ever lived in this country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of the appointed guardians, or, indeed, to reply to the somewhat intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker).

Mr. WALLHEAD: Intemperate!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think they were somewhat intemperate, but I am
not complaining. What I want to do is to remove certain misapprehensions which, it appears to me, are in the hon. Gentleman's mind as to the effect of the Amendment or as to the effect of the present Clause. In the first place, he says that the effect of this Clause is to continue the appointed guardians until the year 1935. That is not so.

Mr. W. THORNE: But you may.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But that makes all the difference. The hon. Member must not assume that the appointed guardians will in all cases be continued until 1935. It says "the Minister may make an Order." Not that he "shall" make, but that he "may" make an Order. Therefore the first point is that the Clause does not say that the guardians are to continue until 1935. It merely says that the Minister may make an Order.

Mr. LAWSON: If the right hon. Gentleman does not make an Order before 1935, can he make an Order afterwards?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: But if an Order were made not later than 1930, the Order would be made at once. That brings me to the second point. The hon. Member said that once an Order was made it could not be revoked except by fresh legislation. I think he is mistaken there again, because if he will look at Clause 109, he will see in Sub-section (2) of that Clause the words:
Except, as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, any order or scheme made under this Act may be altered or revoked by an order or scheme made in like manner and subject to the like provisions as the original order or scheme.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is so difficult to reconcile that with Clause 17, Sub-section (2, b), which says that when once made it "shall" remain in force.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That relates to the relief of the poor. That is the Poor Law Act, 1927. It does not apply to the Order.

Miss LAWRENCE: That is our difficulty. This particular Clause says that when the Minister has once made an Order it shall remain in full force under the Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: To which part of the Act does the hon. Member refer?

Miss LAWRENCE: Clause 17, Sub-section (2, b).

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I venture to think that the hon. Member must have misread that Clause.

Miss LAWRENCE: It says that the Poor Law shall remain in operation until 1935.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the Poor Law Act. I do not think that that affects what, I said just now, that any Order under the Act, except so far as expressly provided elsewhere, may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order. Therefore, I put to the hon. Member this point. Supposing that I am the Minister who makes this Order. It is left entirely to my discretion under this Amendment whether I snake the period five years or something less. In that case, if I did make the Order, I should make it for a period of five years—for reasons into which I need not go now—as the time which would be suitable or proper, but if the contingency arose which he had in his mind, supposing this Government went out of office and were succeeded by another whose policy was quite different, it would be open to the Minister under that Government to make a fresh Order to revoke it altogether.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is a very difficult Clause to understand. It says expressly that power is given to the Minister to provide that the Order shall not come into operation until 1925, and that when he has made the Order, the Poor Law shall stand until 1935. In view of the Minister's explanation I should like to ask him whether he would not consider amending the words of this Clause. The fact that the Measure says he may extend the Order up to 1935, that the Poor Law shall remain in force until 1935, places the Order on an entirely different footing from any other. With the best will in the world, one cannot read it otherwise than as giving the Minister the choice either of allowing Part I of the Act to come into operation or of making an Order extending the period to 1935.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose to ask a question of the Minister which I permitted, but I cannot allow her to make a speech. If I had realised that she wished to make a speech I should not have called her at that moment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but my reading of the Clause as it stands is that, obviously, if an Order is made, then as respects the area for which the Order is made, the Poor Law Act, 1927, must remain in force until the date when the Order is annulled. The prolongation of the Poor Law Act is part of the Order. It says that the Order may provide that the Poor Law Act shall remain in force.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, on the Report stage, he will put in the words "Up to 1935 or such shorter time as the Minister may think fit."?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not at present see any point on which there is any doubt, but I will see whether there is any question which can be cleared up.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not intend to enter into the fine technical points which the Minister has raised. The right hon. Gentleman will not question for a moment that the effect of this Clause is to give him power to hold the Clause from operating so far as the appointed guardians are concerned. He asks that he should have the right to continue the appointed guardians as they are at present, if he so desires it. He excludes the appointed guardians from the operation of this Clause. What we want to do is to hinder him from operating a Clause of this description. The Committee knows very well that when the Guardians (Default) Act was brought before the House, even his own side were rather shocked by the drastic attack on democratic principles that ran through that Act. He made an arrangement whereby he had to come to the House every six months to ask for the right to continue the Order, and he had to lay the Order on the Table for 21 days. He has power, under this Clause, to make an Order to continue the appointed guardians, but after 1930 he has not that power.
Why are these appointed guardian areas excluded from the general plan of the Bill? Why, if he does not contemplate using it, does he put this Clause in the Bill, seeing that it contemplates the continuation of the punishment of the people fin these areas. It does not merely mean that he thinks the guardians who were originally in office when
the Default Act was passed are unfit to act, and it does not merely disfranchise the electors who formerly elected the guardians, but it actually questions the ability of the county councils to run these areas.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is going rather far from the Amendment. The general discussion should be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The question as to whether the power to continue the guardians is to be given or not should be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," but not on this Amendment, the effect of which is to give the Minister power to shorten the time.

Mr. LAWSON: The effect of the Amendment is to limit the Clause, which says that the Minister "may."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has misread the effect of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to shorten the time. The effect of the next Amendment would be to shorten the period.

Mr. W. THORNE: I am in the same position as my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. The Minister of Health knows that for a long time I and a number of my colleagues have been endeavouring to persuade him to dispense with the Commissioners of the Poor Law so far as the West Ham Poor Law area is concerned, but he has refused. In face of what the right hon. Gentleman has said on more than one occasion, and in face of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I am of opinion that as soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman will issue an Order that the present Poor Law Commissioners, so far as West Ham is concerned, are to remain in operation until 1935.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point of the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and which is to leave out the words "thirty-five" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty." That point, therefore, can be raised on the next Amendment.

Mr. THORNE: With respect, I submit that that does not touch the question which I have raised. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the Minister will have discretionary power to make an Order that the Poor Law Commissioners shall operate until 1935. We wish to prevent him from doing that. Assuming that he was not prepared to issue an Order at once, I am convinced that if, after the next General Election, his Government come back to office, he will keep the Commissioners operating until 1935. I am not quite sure where West Ham stands. He referred to the part or whole of the union. I am not sure whether he has decided to cut one part of the union adrift, or otherwise. I see the danger in this Clause, and the

Amendment would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from doing what we fear. Owing to the fall of the guillotine at 10.30, we shall not be able to discuss Clause 17 in all its bearings, otherwise I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would be in for rather a rough time. I should like to have an opportunity to discuss the deletion of the Clause, because I and my colleagues have sonic awkward things to say in regard to the Poor Law Commission at West Ham.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 198.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[8.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South;
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Taylor, P. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne. W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charles




Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Viscountess
Berry, Sir George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Atkinson, C.
Bethel, A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Betterton, Henry B.


Apsley, Lord
Beamish. Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bevan, S. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bennett, A. J.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Douglas H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, Sir William George


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hamilton, Sir George
Philipson, Mabel


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Brooks, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harland, A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Buchan, John
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson. Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chis'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Cassels, J. O.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Cockerill, Brig-General sir George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Savery, S. S.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Conway, Sir w. Martin
Hurst, Gerald
Smith-Carington, Neville w.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iliffe, sir Edward M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Storry-Deans, R.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Little. Dr. E. Graham
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Thorn, Lt.-Col J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manninaham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Forrest W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fraser, Captain Ian
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Wells, S. R.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Colonel J.C. T,
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Withers. John James


Goff, Sir Park
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, sir Charles William C.



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George
Major Sir William Cope and Captain




Bowyer.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, to leave out the word "thirty-five" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-one."
This is a very curious Clause. It does not say that the Minister may make an Order at any time, but that he may either bring the whole Bill into operation or make an Order saying that the Act shall not come into operation until 1935; that the 1st of April, 1935, shall be the appointed day that the Poor Law Act of 1927 shall continue in force until that date; and that the administrative scheme
shall be prepared between April, 1934, and April, 1935. Taking these three things together, taking the extreme mandatory form of the Clause, it seems as if the Minister's own hands were tied very tightly. I want to ask him whether he will consider re-drafting this Clause and give himself or his successor rather more liberty. Suppose the Minister makes an Order prolonging the life of the appointed guardians up to 1935; then in West Ham, Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty, there will be a little island of the old Poor Law in the middle of a reformed scheme of Poor Law relief.
Take my own constituency. To the people in the West Ham Union, Part II of this Bill will not apply. The Poor Law guardians will remain guardians. The Poor Law rate under the Act of 1927 will be levied within the old borders of West Ham and nowhere else in the county of Essex. The same will be the case with the other two exceptional or victim unions. But Part VI, the de-rating, will take effect; the provision with regard to the new block grants for urban districts and so forth will take effect; and the position of ratepayers in parts of the West Ham Union will be extraordinary. Take the two fringes of the West Ham Union, Leyton and Walthamstow. They belong to Essex. Their Poor Law burdens are to be spread over the whole of Essex. As long as the West Ham Union remains in being these two urban districts will continue to bear their very heavy share of the Poor Law. They will suffer losses from de-rating, and being urban districts they will be only compensated by the flat rate of grant which is calculated for urban and rural districts that do not bear any burden of the Poor Law.
It is a very strange state of affairs. As long as Part I remains in force, as long as the appointed guardians continue, the poor rate for the exceptional union will remain the same. The new scheme for grants will come in, and with regard to the urban and rural districts the new grant is calculated on the assumption that they will be relieved by their poor rate being spread over the whole of the county. I noticed that the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking at Wanstead, carried to his constituents the glad news that the scheme of the Minister of Health would give 5s. and more relief of rates to his constituents. A very pleasant thing it was for any Member to go and tell his friends. But that cannot take place under Clause 17. The greater part of the excessive rates of Wanstead and Walthamstow and Leyton comes from the fact that they carry so great a part of the burdens of so poor a unit. Until the appointed guardians have said good-bye that relief cannot come. Looking at the figures it appears to me that the greater part of that 5s. relief to Leyton and Walthamstow, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency, was due to the spreading of the rates. At present they
carry a very large part of the expenditure of West Ham.
9.0 p.m.
That is the sort of difficulty which will occur in any necessitous area which is prolonged under its own set of guardians. It will in addition receive only the grant suitable to urban districts which are not burdened with their own poor. The financial position is the most curious and despairing in the wide world. I do not understand what is to be done with regard to the rates in those districts that have remained little islands of the old-fashioned Poor Law in the middle of the new Poor Law scheme, with the whole system of rates and grants altered, as they are altered, under Part VI of this Bill. I do ask why, with every other board of guardians abolished, with all these excellent ladies and gentlemen for whom everyone has a good word having to go out of force pitilessly in 1930—I ask why these persons appointed by the Minister are to remain in power for seven years. I could perfectly well understand the Minister continuing them in force till 1930. You do not want to have a new guardians election when the guardians are done, hut why keep the appointed guardians alive for seven years? Why should their life be prolonged for that time and all the old boards of guardians who have done so well be turned out in 1930?
There is another point. Seven years is a very long time. There will be very important questions connected with the transfer of property to be settled. In my own union, the union of which East Ham is a part, very expensive buildings have been built by the common contribution of all four districts. Under this scheme that union will be broken up, part of it going to Essex and part of it, apparently, to the county borough union. There will arise difficult questions as to the shares of the localities in the property. They have contributed equally to buy it. The amount that they have given has varied according to their resources, but not according to their needs. No one knows better than the Minister with what a jealous eye local authorities regard the disposition of their property. I do say that A is quite improper that three gentlemen appointed by the Minister, strangers to the locality, not representing the ratepayers, should have power to
deal, over the heads of the ratepayers, with property that has been paid for by the ratepayers. I cannot see the least justification for it. There are, and there will be, the urban districts, the county of Essex, and the county boroughs. Why should not these authorities settle among themselves, without the appointed guardians coming in at all, who shall have each piece of property, and what the claim of those who surrender their management and rights of the property shall be? These people will be charged with the disposal of a great quantity of ratepayers' property without consultation with the ratepayers.
I come back to the point, however, that it is for the Minister to justify his Clause and to tell us why these people are to be treated with such special favour and kindness, and why their areas are to be continued for seven years, and to have this exemption under the scheme. It is for the Minister to tell us how he imagines that a locality of that kind can continue as a little island in the middle of the county under the unreformed Poor Law, while the whole of the rest of the county is going on under the new scheme. I have never heard a more unbusinesslike proposal. It is not as though the year 1930 were to-morrow. There is a year in which to make schemes, in which to settle this question of getting some sort of elected persons into the saddle. We, therefore, press the Minister on this matter, not merely from the point of view of preference for elected guardians, not merely from the point of view of democracy, but from the point of view of businesslike procedure, to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For my purposes it makes very little difference whether the year 1930 or the year 1931 be taken. In fact, although in deference to a point of Order, the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has substituted another date, yet I think she will herself agree that all her arguments are applicable to the date 1930. Indeed I think it is obvious that it would not be worth while continuing the guardians for a single year. Either we must abolish the guardians at once and allow their areas to come into the general provisions of the scheme, or else a reason-
able time must be allowed for arrangements to be made. The hon. Lady in her interesting analysis of the situation has again denounced the unbusinesslike methods of a proposal which is not in fact the proposal contained in the Clause. I think once again she has read the Clause too hastily and has too hastily assumed something which it does not really express.

Mr. W. TORNE: We want the Clause wiped out.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the point I am discussing at the moment. I want to address myself not to whether the Clause should be wiped out or not, but to the arguments used by the hon. Member for East Ham North. She has pointed out that if, under an Order made by virtue of this Clause, the present union of West Ham were to continue as it is to-day, a very difficult question would arise with regard to the finances of the various authorities concerned. Why does the hon. Member assume, even if an Order were made, that it would necessarily prolong the existence of the present union? That is not what the Clause says. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the Clause she will see that under Sub-section (2):
The Minister may, by order declare that as respects the whole or any part of such union,

Mr. THORNE: You can keep us altogether or dissolve us if you like.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not to be assumed, even if an order be made, that such an order will necessarily preserve the present union in its present form. Supposing such an order were made to split up the union of West Ham and to separate off the parts of the union which are outside the county boroughs of West Ham and East Ham and turn those parts over to Essex, then the comforting words said to have been addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his constituents, might not be found so far from the truth as the hon. Member supposed. Once again I submit that the hon. Member had no right to assume, as she did continually in her speech, that an order made under this Clause would apply to all three areas which have now appointed guardians. The position in the three areas is very different and it is by no
means certain that the same order would apply to all three. An order may be made in one case and not in another.
It is quite certain, for instance, that the situation in West Ham is very different from the situation in Chester-le-Street. In the case of Chester-le-Street, the effect of allowing the general provisions of the scheme to come into force would be that the area of charge for Poor Law would be spread over the whole county; in other words, it would be enlarged and the functions now performed by the various boards of guardians in the county would be transferred to the county council. It is at once apparent that you have an entirely different situation in West Ham, because, there, under the normal provisions of the scheme, the area of charge for Poor Law would not be enlarged. On the contrary, it would be narrowed. It would be diminished. According to the general plan of the scheme the county borough is a self-contained unit, and the county council is a self-contained unit. Therefore, if no order were made under this Clause, in West Ham for example, West Ham itself would have the functions of the guardians transferred to it, and East Ham in its turn would have the functions of the guardians transferred to it, and the rest of the union would go under the Essex County Council. It is quite obvious that the financial implications in the two classes of case are quite different. While I am not saying now what orders will be made or will not made, I beg of hon. Members opposite not to proceed on the assumption that these cases are alike, and that the same procedure will necessarily be followed in those areas which may be dealt with under this Clause.

Mr. THORNE: Has the Minister not power, if he thinks proper, to cut away Leyton and Wanstead and keep the others intact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That might be the inevitable effect with regard to the West Ham Union if this Clause does not come into operation.

Mr. THORNE: Then you chop out the two divisions in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's constituency, and they get the benefit while we are penalised.

Miss LAWRENCE: I was not discussing the position of the exceptional areas because I say that the Minister can make such arrangements as he sees fit under Clause III. But Clause 111 is Clause 111 and this is only the question of keeping the permanent guardians in force. That is another thing and I was most careful in dealing with it—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not talking of Clause 111 at all.

Miss LAWRENCE: But the Minister's argument was that the exceptional area might not be cut out. He can do that under Clause 111 without keeping the appointed guardians in force. I did not discuss Clause 111. The point of this Clause is whether it is necessary to keep the appointed guardians alive or not.

Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman told us a good many things but he has not told us why he put this Clause into the Bill. The object distinctly is the continuance of the appointed guardians and that is the root of the matter which we want to discuss, and I understand that the discussion on the previous Amendment was limited in order that we might devote some time to this question. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to use the power of this Clause, I cannot see why the guardians need not he appointed through the public assistance committee. I should have thought that his experience of the appointed guardians has not been as happy and as successful as he expected. At any rate, in respect to the guardians in my own Division, they have now got to the stage that they dare not even report upon their proceedings. At least, in the other two areas where appointed guardians are in operation they have thought they were called upon to give an account of their stewardship to the House of Commons, but in Chester-le-Street they do not even think it worth while to give the Minister a report, though I really wonder whether that is the case and whether the Minister has not really got a report. On the last occasion when he issued one, the report published by the Chester-le-Street guardians was in some respects pathetic, while in others it was comical, to the degree that the Press extracted from it a considerable number of paragraphs for the entertainment of the public.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us to-night whether he is satisfied with the results of these appointed guardians. Is he satisfied for instance with the administration in Chester-le-Street, where two men who have had no experience of public life whatever get £500 a year each? Is he satisfied with a state of things where his guardians give 12s. a week to a woman and 2s. for each child in a family? The House and the country have been greatly moved by the condition of things in the distressed areas, so much so that I venture to say it is that spirit of good will which has ultimately compelled the Government to act in respect to those areas. It is typical of this country, and I believe that, if we could get a decision from the country as to what is happening in these areas where the appointed guardians are operating, the Government would be shamed into sending these guardians about their business, just as they have been shamed into acting in regard to the distressed areas.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman many times—and sometimes it has been the Parliamentary Secretary, usually after 11 o'clock at night, when he has given a reply worthy of a debate after 11—whether he agrees with the granting of the allowances which I have mentioned, which are the usual allowances, with rare exceptions, namely, 12s. a week for a woman, 2s. for each child, and nothing for an able-bodied man. These people with whom we are dealing are not the old, outcast, unemployed wreckage that used to be dealt with by the Poor Law, in the years gone by; they are some of the best heads of families in the county. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some reasons for putting this Clause in the Bill. If these appointed guardians are retained in office, they will have to dispose of the property of the ratepayers, they will have to do business with the county council, turn over the properties, make arrangements for the transfer of the staff, and many matters of that kind.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The provisions for the transference of property are dealt with under the Bill—it is not a question of discretion left to the appointed guardians—and in regard to the officers, they would not be transferred in this case.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the ordinary boards of guardians will have no say as to how the property is to be transferred, that it will be done over their heads?

Sir K. WOOD: Read the Clause.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have read it, and I do not understand it.

Mr. LAWSON: It is very difficult to understand, but I thought that what was saying was one of the things that was agreed upon on all sides.

Sir K. WOOD: Read Clause 93.

Mr. LAWSON: I understood it was clear that the guardians had to make the arrangements for the transference, and, if that is the case—and we are not going to accept that it is not the case—then, of course, all that happens is that you continue these guardians, who cannot write a report, for the purpose of dealing with other people's property. I think the Committee is entitled to fairly clear reasons why this Clause is put into the Bill at all if it is not the intention of the Minister to continue the operations of these appointed guardians, and if he is going to continue them, then I ask him to justify the operations of the guardians in Chester-le-Street, Abertillery and elsewhere which result in giving people the allowances that I have mentioned. Finally, I will ask him, if he wants to carry out the expressed intention of this Bill and to have efficient administration, to clear these people out of office as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) talked about 1930, but I want to see the end of these people, as I dare say she does too, by the end of 1928. We have had enough of them. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes points out that we do not write to him. I do not send any letters to him now, because the letters that I used to send were sent back to the guardians, who replied to him, and it was a case of "As you were." We have had to resort to other means; we have had to take surreptitious means to get people's claims dealt with, to such an extent did they badger people.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: This particular Clause 17 is a blot on the escutcheon of the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to
have forgotten that we are discussing a Local Government Bill, and an impartial observer trying to work out the effects of the Bill would draw, as one of his first conclusions, that a Bill which is intended to reform local government would, essentially, reform those parts of the country where local government has come to an end, and that it would be essential to have these three areas restored to an effective system of local government. That would really be the first test of the efficiency and success of any scheme for the reform of local government. The Minister knows that I am not one of the unhappy people who have to represent these three areas which have lost the historic right of local government in the course of the lifetime of the present Ministry. I have not that unhappy responsibility, and I am not in the position, therefore, to implement the details so ably put forward by the two hon. Members who have spoken from a very bitter, intimate, and prolonged experience with regard to two of these three particular areas.
I do want, therefore, to submit to the Minister that, looking at these things on general ground, he is attempting, first, to say to the Committee: "I have been using these dictatorial rights with regard to these three areas for the purpose of local government, and I propose under this great historic Bill for the reform of local government to retain these powers, and, if I can, to inhibit or make it as difficult as possible for the nation to resume local government in these three areas until 1935." I submit that it is not an over statement, but the language of moderation, to say that Clause 17, looking at the Bill in terms of general principle, is really a very nasty blot on the escutcheon. In replying to matters of detail, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will address the Committee on the main intentions that lie beneath this particular Clause.

Mr. W. THORNE: In the early part of the Debate, when the Minister got up to reply, he said that one of my hon. Friends had made a very impassioned speech. I want to suggest that, if he were representing the Divisions we are representing, he would be quite as impassioned as we are and quite as angry. I am snore than convinced that, if the Birmingham Board of Guardians was operating in the brutal
manner that the Poor Law Commissioners in West Ham are operating, he would be as impassioned as we are. He knows perfectly well that in the union areas of Birmingham the poor people are very much better treated than they are in the Borough of West Ham here the Poor Law Commissioners are operating.
I have risen for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, but, although I am supporting it, I do not think it will have the desired effect. As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that if the Clause were removed altogether, it would not give what we want, because, as long as the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act of 1926 is in operation, you have all the powers given to the Poor Law Commissioners in operation, because you have only to extend them for six months and on to 12 months. We want the complete abolition of these Commissioners. Take their extravagance! It may seem rather strange, but I am more than convinced that, if the Borough Council of West Ham were looking after its own poor, we could actually save more money than these Commissioners. I am up against this extravagance because, bad as the old board was before 1926, you have only to look at the report and you will find salaries and wages at that time were £70,000 per annum. If you look at the report for 1928, you will find that salaries and wages are £93,000. That is a jump of £23,000. Where has the money gone? I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to get up and contradict it if he can. We could have saved that 23,000, or at least a part of it, in West Ham.
You can rest assured that as long as the Poor Law Commissioners are operating in West Ham or anywhere else, and you deny the right of the people to elect their own guardians, we shall certainly enter our most emphatic protest. I repeat that, as soon as this Bill is through, although I am not a prophet, I can see both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary making an Order at once for these Poor Law Commissioners operate until 1935, but long before 1935 the pair of them will be removed from that bench. We shall then have the opportunity of revoking the Order and sending these Commissioners about their business, so that the people will then have the right to elect their own representatives and to deal with their own poor in their own
way. I say unhesitatingly that the way in which these Commissioners ale operating in West Ham is absolutely brutal. I could send the right hon. Gentleman cases which I receive day by day, but I have got sick and tired either of reporting them to him or to the Poor Law Commissioners, because it is absolutely useless. Therefore, we want to get rid of these Commissioners, and, whether this Bill is passed or not, as soon as we get over to the other side of the House—and we will get there some day—it will be revoked, and we shall give people their democratic right. You talked about democracy the other day, but there is nothing democratic about you to-day, and we shall revoke the Order.

The CHAIRMAN: I was just going to remark that I had said nothing about democracy or oligarchy.

Mr. PALING: The hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) asked questions of detail about the possibility of dividing the unions, one into a county area and one into a borough. The Minister gave some explanations, but I have never heard him attempt to explain why he thinks it is necessary to keep these powers under this Clause. When the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act was passed, the argument was that here were guardians who were guilty of extravagance and a great many more sins, and that, in order to rectify this and to bring expenditure in accord with revenue, you must take their powers away and put an appointed board of guardians in. I can appreciate that from the Tory point of view, but now that the guardians are going to be abolished all over the country, why on earth cannot the same Local Government Bill which applies to other boards of guardians apply also to these boards of guardians? Is the reason that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary suspect that if these appointed guardians are shifted the power to deal with the poor will then be in the hands of people of whom he does not approve? Is that the reason? Is it because, if the powers used by the appointed guardians were abolished, control would be given where the Labour party is in a majority on the council? If that is not the reason, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is. The Committee have a right to know why this Clause
is put in. The Minister never attempted to give an answer. Surely, now that guardians are being abolished, it is not asking too much that they shall be abolished all over the country, and that West Ham, or the Essex County Council, or the county council in Wales, or wherever the appointed guardians are, shall have the same powers put into their hands as every other county or county borough throughout the country. If they are not to be entrusted with these powers, the least that the Committee can expect from the Minister is that he should tell us why they cannot be entrusted, and why the Government are reserving these powers in this Clause.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: It appears to me that this Clause is a provision of pure spitefulness. The three authorities where appointed guardians are serving simply offended the Minister, and he says: "Very well, they shall continue for another seven years." I suppose that is why this Clause has been inserted. Or is it because the appointed guardians made their own conditions when they took on the business? They knew that it would be an unpopular and a soul-destroying business. Did they impose their own conditions, and say that if they took it on, they were to be secure for so many years The Minister said that it might not go on until 1935. That is not any reason why we should have this Clause. The real intention seems to be to give these people another lease of life. Why not allow Monmouthshire and Durham, for instance, to start out on the same conditions as other counties? The Poor Law administration is being altered for England and Scotland, but three areas in the whole of the country are to treated differently. It is not fair to those counties. Powers are to be sought to enable these guardians to transfer property and so on. They may transfer property against the wishes of the county council and, if the county councils are to be the administrative bodies eventually, why should any other body have the right to transfer property or to do things which the county councils would like to regain? They might have to purchase some of this property again at very enhanced prices. It is not fair to them to be put in a different position from other counties.
Until now we have been able to discuss these matters every six months, and if
we were not satisfied with the work of these appointed guardians, we had the right to discuss it. Now, however, we are to go for seven years, without having the right to raise the matter. The Minister might say that it may not be seven years, but seven years has been put in the Clause, and I rather think that the appointed guardians have laid down conditions that they are to be kept for that time. It means that in the places affected there will be administrators who will be paid for their services, while the county councillors will have to do their work for nothing. The whole things appears to be wrong from top to bottom. Then, again, there is the question of superannuation. The appointed guardians may decide upon one figure, and the county council, which is eventually to become the authority, may want another figure, so that in these counties there might be two different superannuation schemes running. That, again, is unfair. Then there are certain revenues which are to be kept by the authorities for their own purposes except in these three areas, and there are other assigned revenues which are to be abolished except in these areas, and the loss of them is to be replaced by Exchequer grants. Are those grants to be withheld from the three areas where the appointed guardians are 7 According to the White Paper, the benefit to Monmouthshire is 1s. 5d. Is that to be withheld from the district in that county where appointed guardians are serving? The Clause ought to be withdrawn, and the counties ought to be allowed to start on the same level throughout the country.

Mr. MARCH: I cannot understand why the Government should bring forward a Clause like this. When the Government appointed guardians in the place of the other guardians, it was because the latter were not giving satisfaction. Now that the Government are doing away with hoards of guardians entirely, surely this would be a right and proper time to dispense with appointed guardians, and allow the county councils to take over the whole control, and to get on with their co-opted people, of whom the Government seem to be so proud. The Government's object in this Clause seems to be to keep the appointed guardians in office so that there may be a possibility of their getting superannuation. I understand that they are well paid civil servants, and that they will probably have the right of
having superannuation for the services they have already rendered. Will the same set of people get another lot of superannuation? If not, why are they being kept on?
Surely the county councils or the county boroughs concerned would be able to take up the responsibility of doing the work as well as other councils where the elected boards of guardians are to be dispensed with. To do the honest and right thing, surely it is better to get rid of the appointed guardians and to leave the councils concerned to get on with their work along with the other councils. Then we should probably have an opportunity of seeing how the councils work, and whether they all work on the same basis, or whether they are under-cutting or overriding one or the other. The proper way is to give them all a start together, and let them do the work which is being imposed upon them by this Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not want to inflict myself on the Committee if the Parliamentary Secretary will very kindly reply to the multitude of questions which have been put to him. Will he tell us why the Minister wants to retain the powers in this Clause until 1935? Does the Parliamentary Secretary propose to answer? I am waiting to hear. Well, then, I must go on. It seems to me that the policy of both right hon. Gentlemen is to allow their opponents to make speeches and then trust to their supporters who are not in the House to vote us down, although they know nothing about the point under discussion, and though the Ministers themselves have not, taken the trouble to give their reasons why the Amendment should be opposed. I admit that I was wrong just now when I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman on the question of property, and that boards of guardians have little, if any, say as to how the property shall be transferred; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that even though that is in the Act it is usual for the authority whose property is to be transferred to be considered. On that score I still think that the three gentlemen at West Ham, the three at Bedwellty and the three at Chester-le-Street are not the proper people to represent the ratepayers in that matter; and in regard to a very much more important question they are not the right people to represent the ratepayers.
As the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March) has just pointed out, very big questions, big from the personal point of view, will arise in regard to officers who do not care to be transferred and who, from the point of view of age or infirmity, are eligible for superannuation. I do not think that three men pitchforked into a district are the right people to decide on what terms old officers should be transferred or superannuated. I am speaking now from the point of view of one who during a good many years has had to do with the superannuation of officers. One gets accustomed to an officer, one understands his work and, what is more, understands his worth. One understands the services which have been rendered, quite apart from their money value—services to which no monetary value can be attached; and when the time comes for superannuating those persons the people who are best able to judge whether a few years should be added to their term of service or not are not people like those who have been sent into the districts I have named, as a penalty on the localities, and who have no knowledge of the previous service of the men and women serving under them. They are not in a position to give that sort of sympathetic consideration which, I should have thought, the Minister would have been only too willing to see applied in such circumstances. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman smiling or smirking or shaking his head. I happen to know in connection with our own board at Poplar that what is worrying all the older officers is whether they will be superannuated by the Board which knows them, or whether we shall hand them over to a new authority which has no idea of the services they have rendered.
It is for these reasons that I feel it to be a real outrage to leave this power in the hands of the appointed guardians in the three unions concerned. The question with regard to these men ought to be settled at the same time as we deal with the other guardians. Up to the present, neither of the Ministers has given us the slightest reason for retaining these men in office. It may be argued, in the case of West Ham, that there will have to be some special arrangement made in regard to West Ham as a Poor Law area. About that my hon. Friends
the Members for that district know better that I do, but it is certain that the Minister can just as well make this arrangement before the Act comes into operation as retain those men in office until 1935. Surely the question of dealing with part of this area will arise when the Bill begins to operate? The Minister said that he is not sure that he will be able to deal with all the three districts in the same manner; but one thing he did do, and that was to devote some of the few words which he deigned to bestow upon the Committee to dealing with the case of West Ham and the county of Essex.
What I want to say in reply to him, and what I want to emphasize, is that the question of what to do with West Ham will remain whether there are appointed guardians there or elected guardians, and it is a question which ought to be settled whenever this Bill comes into operation. There is no reason why West Ham should not get whatever benefits there may be from the equalisation of burdens at the same moment as Poplar, its next door neighbour. For the life of me I cannot see why that should not he so, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to stand up when I sit down—and I will sit down now if he wishes for the opportunity—to tell us why these appointed guardians are to he maintained in office. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar has put forward one reason, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say upon that. Have the nine gentlemen concerned a secret agreement with the Minister for a certain term of years? Will the Treasury have to compensate them if the ratepayers of West Ham and Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street are relieved of the responsibility of continuing their salaries? We would like an answer to that question.
Further, in the case of the Durham County Council, or in the case of the council of the county in which Bedwellty is situated—[HON. MEMBERS "Monmouthshire"]—well, part of Monmouthshire,—does the right hon. Gentleman carry his objection to elected representatives of the people to the extent of saying that those who will be elected for those areas are unfit to administer the Poor Law and that he must continue the
appointed guardians in office? What reason can he give to the people of these districts, except that he thinks those who will lie elected will be unfit to carry out the duties which will be imposed upon them by this Act? The Parliamentary Secretary said last night that we believed in democracy when it acted as we wanted it to act. That is exactly the position of the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary, because they believe in elected representatives when those representatives do what they think is right.
The whole quarrel with regard to elected guardians arises because certain other guardians did not carry out the law in a way approved of by the two right hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned, and because they administered the Poor Law in a fashion that caused the rates to go up and entailed considerable expenditure. I am aware that these gentlemen whom it is proposed to continue in office have reduced the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief, but their policy and the policy which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has imposed upon other boards, and particularly in West Ham, Bedwellty and Chester-le-Street, in my opinion alone responsible for the position in which the people in the coalfields find themselves to-day. We should have no need or cause to go to the public for subscriptions if these nine gentlemen and others like them had done their duty. The people responsible for that state of things are the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting opposite.
Do the Government propose that the nine appointed guardians shall continue until 1935 for the purpose of continuing a policy which they dare not allow the electors to pass any opinion upon? If that is so, why should you single out the people in those particular areas and say you will retain power to do that in those areas? It is no use hon. Members telling us that we are taking it for granted that the Minister of Health is going to do certain things. We judge the right hon. Gentleman by his past record, and we know that when he takes power to do certain things, we are quite certain of the direction in which he will exercise them. The Minister of Health has never exercised his powers in order to compel the guardians to give more to the poor people. The only people the
right hon. Gentleman supports are these nine appointed gentlemen who have done their level best to starve the poor in the districts which they have administered.
10.0 p.m.
There has never been in the history of the Poor Law, so brutal, so callous and so sordid an administration of the Poor Law as that which has been carried out by these appointed guardians. Never in the very worst days of 1834 when out-door relief was stamped out was the condition of things worse, and that was the time when Disraeli, Dickens and Kingsley, wrote about the horrors of the new Poor Law. I think it would do the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary good to read "Sybil" and then they would be improving their minds by reading something that the great founder of modern Conservatism wrote. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite would find in the pages of "Sybil" an exact counterpart of these nine appointed gentlemen which the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary want to keep in office because those gentlemen have reduced the persons coming up for relief to a less level than what is called the worst paid independent labourer. Not merely that, hut they have said to the ex-service men, to the widows of ex-service men, to the little child who has got a grant from the State because its father was killed in the War: "Your income shall be taken into account in assessing the needs of your family." Nothing more contemptible has ever been heard of in this country. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite may sneer about my statement as they please, but the people outside this House, thank God, are beginning to understand what this kind of administration means. Not only have the Government done those things to these wretched people, not only have they taken away hundreds of pounds a year in addition to the pensions they already draw, but these gentlemen have had the impudence to take away a disability allowance and take that into account in assessing the need of a family and in order to decide whether the man is destitute or not. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not say that when they were asking these men to go and fight for this country over in France and Flanders. Then they were heroes, but now you treat them worse than ever men and women have been treated before
under the Poor Law. Is it to perpetuate that sort of thing that you want these conditions to prevail until 1935? Is it because you feel that these gentlemen have not done enough mischief and that the poor have not suffered enough that you propose that another period of five or six years should be allowed for this kind of thing to go on? If it is not for that then stand up and tell the House what it is for. If you do not do so, then I think we are entitled to say that the reason you will not do it is because you dare not trust the electors of those districts to continue the infamous policy that these nine appointed guardians have been guilty of for the last three years.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The remarks which have just been made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) induced me to consider for a moment what it was that this system of appointed guardians was introduced to supersede. The charge has been made that because we would not trust the electors in those districts that we were undemocratic. The first pamphlet which I find issued on this subject refers to Chester-le-Street. Hon. Members will recollect that the first accusation made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley against the Government was that they believed that the electors would elect guardians of his own particular complexion, not supporters of the present Government. May I point out that in 1926 the chairman of the emergency committee elected members to supplement the previous members of the board. On that occasion did the chairman elect members of the Tory party or even of the Liberal party? Not a bit of it. On that occasion the chairman suggested that the members of the Labour party on the board should be added to the committee, and not either Tory members or Liberal members. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley talks about undemocratic action and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) looks upon this Clause as the one blot on the Conservative escutcheon.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: If the hon. Member wants to quote me let him be fair.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: He and, I think, some other hon. Members, gave us an account of the smallness of the relief given to women and children. I do not think that anybody on this side of the Committee would agree that the relief given is excessive, but what we do agree is that the relief is given on fair and equal terms to those who require it. Therefore, on the words of hon. Members opposite, one would at least have assumed that the former guardians gave their relief without fear, partiality or faction. What do I see? I see a resolution passed by one of these relief committees as follows:
Resolved, that applicants for relief who are un-financial to their union owing to their own fault be not granted relief according to scale.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the ex-service man, but, as regards the ex-service man who refuses to join a union and whose wife and children are starving, do they get any sympathy from the party opposite? Not a bit.

Mr. LANSBURY: I make the hon. and gallant Gentleman a present of all that, but will he produce any case of an individual who was refused relief under that resolution? I have given the Government cases, and they have not answered them.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Gentleman has seen the White Papers on the subject, and he has no right to accuse us of being unfair to ex-service men when here it appears that all that those local authorities care for is whether a man is a trade unionist or not.

Mr. LANSBURY: What I challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do—[Interruption.] Do not let hon. Members be so eager; the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given way. The only point between us is that he has not produced a single scintilla of evidence that any individual was dealt with—[Interruption.] I am not in the House of Commons because I had a university education. I had to graduate in the school of experience, and, if I pronounce a word wrongly, it does not lie in the lips of the right hon. Gentleman to—

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that we are getting rather away from the question whether these particular guardians should be continued in office.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point between myself and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he gave way to me, was that he has read out a Resolution while I have given individual cases. I challenge the Minister to contradict them, and I challenge the hon. and gallant Member to give a single instance where an ex-service man, either in Durham or elsewhere, was refused outdoor or any other relief that he needed, because he did not belong to a union.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I think the Committee will agree that it is much more damaging to the ease of the hon. Gentleman to take the actual resolution, which distinctly says that the man shall be judged according to whether or not he is financial or unfinancial in his union. There is another case here, where a relief committee decided that, in cases where men are unfinancial to their trade union—the words "trade union" being actually mentioned—the full scale should not he granted for six weeks, but that each case should be dealt with on its merits. The hon. Gentleman can, perhaps, read into that that ex-service men will have special consideration, but I think that the ex-service man has very little likelihood of receiving any special consideration at all if he does not belong to a trade union. I have only quoted from two pages of the Report of the appointed guardians, and I think the Committee will be prepared to decide whether the appointment of these guardians was necessary. I suggest that all the fine and flowery epithets of the hon. Gentleman, and the extraordinary wave of indignation on the part of those behind him, were most misplaced. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should read "Sybil." I would suggest to him that he should take a, party upstairs into a Committee Boom on these pamphlets regarding Chester-le-Street and other places. [Interruption.]

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I think the dragging in of ex-service men by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) will be best appreciated if it is put in contrast with some of the other cases that have been referred to. I want, if I may, to make an appeal to the Minister. We have not had a word of explanation as to why Clause 17 is being persisted in, and at this I feel a little surprised and a
little hurt. I desire to plead that Monmouthshire, a neighbouring county to my own, should be allowed to have a fair start. If Bedwellty, which covers a large part of Monmouthshire, is going to be taken away from the county by the operation of this Clause, Monmouthshire will be dealt with very unjustly and inequitably. If these Commissioners are allowed to continue in operation, nearly half the county will be taken away when the new Act comes into force
There is a second reason. There are in Bedwellty a very large number of old officers who will have to be dealt with in some form or other, and surely the people who have the information and knowledge with regard to the work these old officers have performed are the best persons to deal with the question of their transfer and superannuation. For these two reasons, I want to ask the Minister that all three local government authorities should be allowed to start with all the other counties and county boroughs and that he should withdraw the Clause and begin with a clean slate. Whatever our sins of commission or omission may have been in the past, there is no reason why we should continue, and there is every reason why the Commissioners should be withdrawn, and the three places should be allowed to start along with the other counties and county boroughs.

Mr. WALLHEAD: As far as I know anything at all about Durham, the ex-service men there are the strongest supporters of the Labour party. There were ex-service men upon these very committees that passed these resolutions, and it was clone because the men who were in receipt of funds from their trade unions were having their allowance from the guardians reduced in consequence, and the whole thing was done for the purpose of equalising benefits all the way round. You could not expect anything else under the circumstances. As far as one can see, it was perfectly fair and it was clone with the knowledge, connivance and assistance of the ex-service men's organisation in the county. I will challenge the hon. and gallant Gentleman to go to Durham in his capacity of an ex-officer and attempt to stir up the ex-service men's organisation to vote against the Labour party, which he says was guilty of this outrageous thing.
I should like to put to the Minister the extraordinary position that is going to arise, particularly in these two counties of Durham and Monmouth. I take it one of the effects of this Bill will be a kind of equalisation of treatment for the whole of the various county areas. Under the Bill, the old boards of guardians will be wiped out. In any case, there will be no re-establishment of the offending boards of guardians. An entirely new organisation will come into being. Is it to be said that you are going to have differential treatment in two parts of the same county operated by one authority? If the new authority in Monmouthshire cannot he trusted to deal with poor relief outside the present Bedwellty Union, why does not the Minister at once appoint guardians to supersede or take over the whole of the county? That seems to me to be the logic of the situation. How is he going to get over the difficulty? These new authorities are coming into being. It is fair to assume that a different policy will be pursued. Had there been an offending authority in a county like Middlesex or Surrey, or some strong Conservative county, the Minister would not have put this Clause in his Bill. He would not have done it in a Conservative county. He is really doing it because these two counties are strong Labour counties.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) has been inviting my right hon. Friend and myself to make a statement as to the whole position, and we should have been in a position to have done so if hon. Gentlemen opposite, following their tactics throughout yesterday and to-day, had not wasted considerable time. [Interruption.] They have spent their time in discussing whether "thirty-one" should take the place of "thirty-five" instead of moving as they were entitled to do, the deletion of the Clause, when a full statement could have been made. Hon. Members themselves are entirely responsible for the position in which they find themselves. As regards this particular Amendment, of course it should be understood that we are proposing to continue under the Clause the giving of powers to the Minister of Health to continue, if he so desires, the appointed guardians at the three places which were
mentioned. But for the tactics of the Opposition it was my right hon. Friend's intention to have made a speech on that position. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite not to be too confident as to what will happen under this particular Clause. They may be rather surprised if ever the occasion is permitted to my hon. Friend to make a statement in this particular connection.
I want to say one word with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—the usual speech. Most of us in this Committee, I think, appreciate the value of his speeches, but it may be that certain of the officers of Poor Law unions affected may be disturbed by the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made. I want them, as far as they read these Debates, to know that any statement which the hon. Gentleman has made concerning their position is entirely without foundation. As far as the officers are concerned—whether or not boards of guardians are in existence—it will make no difference whatever to their legal rights if this Bill becomes law. If the hon. Gentleman will only devote a little time to considering Clause 99, he will find that the rights and positions of the Poor Law officers are fully safeguarded under this proposal. They are not in any way concerned whether guardians exist or not, or as to what action boards of guardians may or may not take. Their rights in no way depend upon that particular aspect of the matter.
The hon. Gentleman has devoted a good deal of time to attacking the administration, particularly of the West Ham appointed guardians, but certainly as far as the work of the appointed guardians is concerned, we have only to look at the results which they have achieved during the last few years, and compare them with the work of their predecessors to realise that they merit the approval of the great majority of the Members of this Committee. I would refer the hon. Member to a statement which appeared only a short time ago, showing that for a period up to the 28th January, 1928, of 615 cases who had ceased to apply for relief, not less than 71.7 per cent. had obtained work, and of this number who obtained work, in order that there should be no question about it, in view of the tactics generally employed by the hon.
Member opposite, the names and addresses of the employers of 71.4 per cent. of cases have been duly recorded and noted. For the second period, from the 4th February, 1928, to the 28th April, 1928, of 542 cases ceasing to apply for relief, 455, or 83.94 per cent. have obtained work, and of this number the names and addresses of 76.7 per cent, of the employers have been duly noted and recorded. When we see facts like these, I think the good work of these gentlemen has been fully maintained. I ask that the Committee will reject this Amendment and show their confidence in the action of these men who, under great difficulty and in face of the attacks of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and other hon. Members, have performed a very good work.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has taken some pains to attempt to answer a question about Poor Law officials. He did not reply to the simple point which I put—if he understood the Poor Law he would have understood it—namely, that when an old officer

is retiring, a board which knows his worth and his work very often asks the Minister to allow them to add an extra two or three years to his superannuation. I argued that no new body would be in a position to deal with that question as well as those who had had experience. With respect to the men who have found work, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the figures of unemployment in West Ham have gone up instead of going down. To say that these gentlemen have found work for these men is sheer undiluted nonsense. Proof of that is the fact that the Government to-morrow are bringing in a Supplementary Estimate in order to feed and clothe the people whom the right hon. Gentleman's commissioners have shoved off the Poor Law. But for the action of these gentlemen, there would have been no need for the Supplementary Estimate to-morrow.

Question put, "That the word thirty-five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 148.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fielden, E. B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Forrest, W.


Apsley, Lord
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Chapman, Sir S.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarry, Reginald George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Goff, Sir Park


Berry, Sir George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gower, Sir Robert


Bethel, A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grace, John


Betterton, Henry B.
Colman, N. C. D.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bevan, S. J.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bird, E R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cope, Major Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bowyer, Captain G E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Briggs, J. Harold
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harland, A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dixey, A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Eden. Captain Anthony
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bullock Captain M.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Hills, Major John Walter
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hilton, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nuttall, Ellis
Storry-Deans, R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pennefather, Sir John
Templeton, W. P.


Iveagh, Countess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Parkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kennedy A. R. (Preston)
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Phillipson, Mabel
Tinne, J. A.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pilcher, G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Waddington, R.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Preston, William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Long, Major Eric
Radford, E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Looker, Herbert William
Raine, Sir Walter
Warrender, Sir victor


Lougher, Lewis
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lynn, Sir H. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Watts, Sir Thomas


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ropner, Major L.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Rye, F. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Margesson, Captain D.
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Withers, John James


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanders Sir Robert A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sanderson. Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Wragg, Herbert


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Skelton, A. N.
Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess




of Titchfield.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Baker, Walter
Fenby, T. D.
Kirkwood, D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Lansbury, George


Barr, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Bellamy, A.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Bondfield, Margaret
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, F. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Longbottom, A. W.


Briant, Frank
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Broad, F. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lunn, William


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall. F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Cape, Thomas
Harney, E. A.
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, H.


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Oliver, George Harold


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Dalton, Hugh
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, W.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.


Day, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, Ben




Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F O. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Strauss, E. A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Sullivan, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, J.


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Taylor, R. A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Sexton, James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, David (Swansea. E.)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond.
Tomilnson, R. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shinwell, E.
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Windsor, Walter


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen



Stamford, T. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively, to put forthwith the Question on, an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary

to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 146.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[10.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Goff, Sir Park


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chapman, Sir S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Albery, Irving James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clarry, Reginald George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Astor, Viscountess
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grotrian, H. Brent


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hacking, Douglas H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper. A. Dun
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major Sir William
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Berry, Sir George
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harland, A.


Bethel, A.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bevan, S. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dixey, A. C.
Hills, Major John Waller


Brass, Captain W.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hilton. Cecil


Briggs, J. Harold
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Briscoe, Richard George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'thTd., Hexham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buchan, John
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fielden, E. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Burman, J. B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Forrest, W.
Iveagh, Countess or


Campbell, E. T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Carver, Major W. H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cassels, J. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Gates, Percy
Lamb, J. Q.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Loder, J. de V.


Long, Major Eric
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Looker, Herbert William
Philipson, Mabel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lougher, Lewis
Pilcher, G.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Power, Sir John Cecil
Templeton, W. P.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Raine, Sir Walter
Tinne, J. A.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rentoul, G. S.
Waddington, R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Margesson, Captain D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ward. Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ropner, Major L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Rye, F. G.
Watson. Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Salmon, Major I.
Waits, Sir Thomas


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayn)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.
Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds. Central)


Morrison H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Murchison. Sir Kenneth
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Withers, John James


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron
Wragg, Herbert


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Pennefather, Sir John
Spender-Clay. Colonel H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Mr. Penny and Major The Marquess


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
of Titchfield.


Perring, Sir William George
Storry-Deans, R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Ammon, Charles George
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Baker, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Barr, J.
Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellamy, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Bondfield, Margaret
Hardie, George D.
Owen, Major G.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harney, E. A.
Palin, John Henry


Briant, Frank
Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brawn, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hollins, A.
Riley, Ben


Cape, Thomas
Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cluse, W. S.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Crawfurd, H. E
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Kelly, W. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Kennedy, T
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Day, Harry
Lansbury, George
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Fenby, T. D.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gardner, J. P.
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Sullivan, J.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.




Taylor, R. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thurtle, Ernest
Wellock, Wilfred
Windsor, Walter


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, J. L.
Wright, W.


Tomlinson, R. P.
Westwood, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Townend, A. E.
Wiggins, William Martin



Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Clauses 18 (Transfer of functions under Registration Acts), 19 (Conversion of registration officers into salaried officers), 20 (Power to increase statutory fees), 21 (Schemes for the administration of Registration Acts in counties and county boroughs), 22 (Salary of Registrar-General), 23 (Amendment of law as to method of giving information of birth or death), 24 (Application to London),

25 (Construction and citation), 26 (County roads), and 27 (Transfer to county councils of functions with respect to highways in rural districts).

Question put, "That Clauses 18 to 27 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 150.

Division No. 93.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harland, A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harrison, G. J. C.


Albery, Irving James
Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cooper, A Duff
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cope. Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Cooper, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Astor, Viscountess
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Henn, Sir Sydney H. '


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hills, Major John Waller


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hilton, Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holt, Captain H. p.


Bennett, A. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. [Hertford)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bethel, A.
Dixey, A. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon Herbert
Hudson. R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bevan, S. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brass, Captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Briggs, J. Harold
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Brittain, Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, Sir L
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Loder, J. de V.


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Buchan, John
Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William


Bullock, Captain M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, Lewis


Burman, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Goff, Sir Park
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cassels, J. D.
Grace, John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grotrian, H. Brent
Margesson, Captain D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Christie, J. A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meyer, Sir Frank


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir George
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, S. S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tinne, J. A.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rye, F. G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waddington, R.


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Nuttall, Ellis
Sandon, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Pennefather, Sir John
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wayland, Sir William A.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Perring, Sir William George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Philipson, Mabel
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Pitcher, G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Preston, William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Withers, John James


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wolmer, Viscount


Radford, E. A.
Storry-Deans, R,
Womersley, W. J.


Raine, Sir Walter
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ramsden, E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Tasker, R. Inigo,
Wragg, Herbert


Rentoul, G. S.
Templeton, W. P.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Harney, E. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Bellamy, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, J.


Crawfurd, H. E
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Longbottom, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


 Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T, E.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)




Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Windsor, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Wright, W.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

CLAUSE 28.—(Transfer of classified roads in urban districts to county council.)

Amendment made:

In page 25, line 25, at the end, add the words:
(6) Where after the appointed day any area, being or forming part of a rural district, is by a Provisional or other Order constituted an urban district or added to an urban district the Order may provide that any unclassified roads within that area shall continue to be county roads and where

the Order contains such a provision as respects any roads the Order may provide for contributions being made by the urban district council to the county council towards the cost of the maintenance and repair of those roads of such amounts as may be agreed between the councils or, in default of agreement, determined by the Minister of Transport."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 148.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cope, Major Sir William
Hills, Major John Waller


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Couper, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Apsley, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Astor, Viscountess
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurst, Gerald B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Iveagh, Countess of


Bennett, A. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bethel, A.
Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bevan, S. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fermoy, Lord
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Long, Major Eric


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Looker, Herbert William


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lougher, Lewis


Brass, Captain W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera


Briggs, J. Harold
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ganzonl, Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brocklebank, C. E, R.
Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gault, Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan Captain H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Goff, Sir Park
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Buchan, John
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Burman, J. B.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Carver, Major W. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cassels, J. D.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hamilton, Sir George
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hammersley, S. S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C


Christie, J. A.
Harland, A,
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur dive


Clarry, Reginald George
Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nuttall, Ellis


Colman, N. C. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oakley, T.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Pennefather, Sir John
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sandon, Lord
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Waddington, R.


Perring, Sir William George
Savery, S. S.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Philipson, Mabel
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Pitcher, G.
Shepperson, E. W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Power, Sir John Cecil
Skelton, A. N.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Waits, Sir Thomas


Preston, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Price, Major c. W. M.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Raine, Sir Walter
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ramsden, E,
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Rentoul, G. S.
Stanley. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ropner, Major L.
Sugdon, Sir Wilfrid
Withers, John James


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Tasker, R Inigo.
Wolmer, Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Rye, F. G.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.



Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, Walter
Harney, E. A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hollins, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M,
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Longbottom, A. W.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Viant, S P.


Davies Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morqan, Lt.-Col D.(Rhondda)


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

It being after Eleven, of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Ipswich Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 26th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of the county borough of Burnley, which was presented on the 28th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Petersfield and Selsey Gas Company, which was presented on the 28th November and published, he approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to he made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Leek, which was presented on the 30th November and published, he approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Redhill Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Rugby Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th November and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor. Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Rochdale, which was presented on the 4th December and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Bishops Stortford, Harlow and Epping Gas and Electricity Company, which was presented
on the 30th November and published, be approved, with the following amendment—
In lines 4 and 5 of Part II of the Schedule to the Order omit the words 'Frank Harding Jones, Stanley Hunter Jones and Ethel Mary Jones,' and insert in place thereof Herbert Pedfield.'

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Lord Mayor. Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Bradford, which was presented on the 4th December and published, be approved."—[Mr. H. Williams.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
that the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Warsop, the rural districts of Leake, Newark and South-well, and parts of the rural districts of Basford, Bingham, Skegby and Stapleford, all in the county of Nottingham, which was presented on the 8th day of November, 1928, be approved subject to the following addition and amendments thereto:

Page 4, after Clause 10, insert the following Clause:

(For protection of the Butterley Company, Limited, and of the Bolsover Colliery Company, Limited.)

1. The provisions of Section eighteen of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act. 1899, shall for the purposes of this Order extend and apply to and for the protection of the Butterley Company, Limited, and of the Bolsover Colliery Company, Limited (hereinafter collectively referred to as the two Companies') and their respective electric lines as if each of the two companies were a body or person supplying energy in pursuance of the principal Act, and as if such electric lines had been placed under the powers of that Act.

2. Where either of the two companies—

(a) requires to dig or sink any trench for laying down or constructing any new electric lines (other than service lines) near to which any electric line belonging to the undertakers has been lawfully placed; or
(b) finds it necessary to undermine but not alter the position of any electric line belonging to the undertakers; or
(c) lays any electric line crossing or liable to touch any electric line belonging to the undertakers,
such company shall, in relation to the said matters, respectively comply with the same
requirements and be subject to the same obligations and penalties in case of default as are, in relation to the said matters, imposed upon undertakers or operators (as the case may be) by Section eighteen of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.

3.—(a) Each of the two companies shall forthwith cause a map to be made of the area within which such company has laid electric lines, and shall cause to be marked thereon the line and the depth below the surface of all underground electric lines other than electric lines laid in colliery premises in the occupation of such company, and shall once in every year cause that map to be duly corrected so as to show the then existing lines other than as aforesaid.

(b) Every map so made or corrected, or a, copy thereof, marked with the date when it was so made or last corrected shall be kept by each of the two companies at their respective registered offices, and shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection of the undertakers who may take copies of it or any part thereof.

4. Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to authorise either of the two companies to break up or interfere with any street.

Page 5, line 5, after 'one-half,' insert 'of one.'

Page 5, line 16, leave out 'last-mentioned sum exceeds,' and insert said divisible profits (after providing any sums for reserves and deficiency as aforesaid) exceeds.'"

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respects of parts of the rural districts of Uckfield and Hailsham, in the administrative county of East Sussex, and parts of the rural districts of Tonbridge, Maidstone and
Hollingbourn, in the county of Kent, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 6th day of November, 1928, he approved subject to the following amendments:

Page 3, leave out Clause 9, and insert the following Clause:

(Power to break up streets for certain purposes.)

(9) The undertakers may, so far as may be necessary or convenient for the purpose of facilitating the supply of electricity within their area of supply, under the Cranbrook and District Electricity Orders, 1923 and 1924 and this Order, or of enabling them to give a supply of electricity in bulk under any agreement or arrangement which may be made between the undertakers on the one hand and the Uckfield Gas and Electricity Company on the other hand, break up the parts of streets not repairable by the local authority, which are mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Order, and may for any such purpose lay down or place electric lines and other works therein.

Page 8, leave out lines 51 and 52, and insert—
Parts of streets not repairable by the local authority which may be broken up for certain purposes by the undertakers in pursuance of the special powers granted by this Order."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.